First, read the Macleans piece from March 5, 2007. It not only provides a good summary of the Herouxville story but also describes the issue at a pan-Canadian level. Excellent job by Cathy Gulli and Nancy Macdonald.
So the Herouxville town council expects new immigrants to settle in their town in the near future. The purported purpose of the declaration was to let newcomers know what to expect.
I'll post some extracts from the Macleans piece and respond.
"The list of community "standards," which draws on the results of a crude, 20-question opinion poll of 196 area residents, managed to offend practically everyone. Muslims felt they were slurred by advice that the only time you may mask or cover your face in Hérouxville is at Halloween. (Not to mention an express prohibition on stoning, live burning or disfiguring women with acid.) Sikhs saw a slight in the rule that children may not carry any weapons "real or fake, symbolic or not" to school, a clear reference to a high-profile court battle that gave a Montreal boy the right to carry a religious kirpan dagger to school. Jews could find echoes of a recent dust-up between a Hasidic synagogue and a neighbouring YMCA in Outremont in the proclamation that gyms in Hérouxville have windows through which you might glimpse women working out in "appropriate exercise wear." The townsfolk even included a message for born-again Christians: biology is taught in local schools."
I don't see any need for them to mention the stoning, burning, or acid throwing. These are all prohibited by the Canadian Criminal Code and not specific to any particular culture. I can see how this part of the statement could be offensive, but aren't Muslims re-affirming the stereotype by assuming that the declaration talks about them when mentioning stone throwing, burning, and acid throwing?
The face covering issue is one that I agree with. I personally feel that it is a barrier to integration, but it has also been proven to be practically incompatible with western social norms. We all remember the case of the English teaching assistant refusing to remove her veil at work. Let's remember that the incident occurred only after students complained that they couldn't understand what she was saying. You can also make the case for security, especially after there have been several burqa-bandit type robberies in Canada, the US, and the UK.
I absolutely disagreed with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to allow the carrying of kirpans in school. It gives one religious group more rights than others in a public place. I'm still waiting for someone to carry a regular knife to school and scream religious discrimination when they're told they can't. It's completely retarded to allow weapons in schools, period. Then there was the moron who wanted to carry one onto a train. The Right Honourable Navdeep Bains of Mississauga-Brampton South apparently plans to take this up with the Transport Minister. And oh, he also wears a kirpan in the House of Commons. Seriously, wtf?
And let's not forget the Sikh group challenge against having to wear hardhats (and thus remove their turbans) at construction sites.
The "appropriate exercise wear" comment springs from this case. Once again, religious mores trumped common sense. Why couldn't the synagogue tint its own windows? Why the hell did the YMCA bend over for religion?
And they also threw a barb at Christian creationists by stating that biology is taught in local schools. This one was a tad unnecessary, since I doubt many American creationists will be moving to the "liberal bastion" that is Canada. It was still funny though.
My opinions? The veil/burqa/niqab is a barrier to integration, and a security risk. Not to mention that it looks silly. Yes, I'm aware that burqas and veils are different things, they both look silly. Allowing weapons in schools, trains, and the House of Commons is utterly ridiculous. If you don't like hard hat rules, don't get constructions jobs. If you don't want to see women exercising in workout clothes, don't look through the damn window. Creationism belongs in religious classes, not in biology.
"In Europe, there's a lengthening list of formerly open societies that have chosen to raise the drawbridge. Terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, widespread rioting in France, and the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh have stoked fears that allowing immigrants -- especially Muslims -- to keep their own cultures has created a growing "us and them" divide. France has banned the wearing of the hijab in schools, and the Netherlands is debating whether to go even further, outlawing veils, burkas and head coverings in all public places. (The once-liberal Dutch already boast the toughest immigration rules in Europe, testing the tolerance of would-be newcomers by gauging their reaction to scenes of homosexuals kissing and nude beaches.) Norway now requires citizenship applicants to take 300 hours of language classes. And the U.K. has introduced legislation that will see all non-European workers (including Canadians) start carrying biometric ID cards next year."
I must say, I absolutely love the Dutch tolerance test with gay kissing and nude beach videos. Language testing is already a part of the Canadian immigration process. From my own experiences, I feel mandatory language classes are a good idea.
"But these days, there are troubling signs that the tried and true methods of assimilation may no longer be working. A recent Statistics Canada study concluded that the low-income rate ($26,800 for a family of four) among recent immigrant families is now three times higher than for those born in Canada. Unemployment and underemployment rates remain stubbornly high. The study that has caused the most consternation, however, is a recent paper by University of Toronto sociologist Jeffrey Reitz and economist Rupa Banerjee, which found the children of visible minority immigrants not only feel "less Canadian" than their white counterparts, but report more discrimination than their parents. The place where they encounter most racism? Work. "Thirty-five per cent of visible minorities report some discrimination," says Reitz. "That certainly sounds to me like the system is broken." The conditions for a debate about how we treat newcomers, he adds, and what we expect in return, are certainly falling into place."
I have serious reservations about the UofT paper finding that second generation immigrants feel less Canadian. Then again, I am biased by my personal experiences and those of my friends.
This is excellent news. Canadians are still embracing immigration, and a majority of Muslims are proud to be Canadian. By the way, can we stop saying Muslim community and Jewish Community? It really is ok to say Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. It's also ok to call people Black, White, Brown, and Yellow. This is a topic for another day though.
"The Toronto terror arrests and last summer's evacuations from Lebanon have sparked a new debate about what citizens, new and old, owe Canada. And there are many who think we've been a little too flexible, and not quite demanding enough."
Count me among those who feel that we've been a little too flexible.
"Adrienne Clarkson, Canada's former governor general, argues that there is a pressing need to better integrate newcomers into the mainstream. "We used to say that these people will become Canadians in two or three generations, but I don't think we have time for that anymore," says Clarkson, who now heads the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, an organization that promotes civic participation and integration. "It should be accomplished within five to 10 years." If Canada is going to continue to successfully absorb 250,000 people a year, Clarkson says we need more public debate and education about our national values, not less. Simply focusing on enhanced rules, or more flexible accommodation, won't do the trick. New and old Canadians will have to learn to adapt to the changing realities -- everything from head scarves to same-sex marriages -- just as their predecessors did in the past."
Amen sister, amen.
Immigration is good for Canada, both economically and culturally. This country has always prided itself on being multicultural and accomodating to immigrants. My family immigrated here in 1995, and I have never felt unwelcome. However, there are reasons why my family (and many others) chose to move to Canada. This is an open society, where you not only have freedom of religion but also freedom from religion.
Practically, this is how I see it. Let's have churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples and allow people to freely practice their religion (as they do now). There should be conditions placed on this freedom though. The first and most important condition: your religious practices cannot contravene Canadian law. This is generally not disputed, so lets move on to the second most important condition (and my pet peeve).
When you move to a country, it should be your prerogative to adopt to it, not vice versa. Since Canadians are ridiculously kind and polite, some of us have done our best to bend over backwards for religious groups. This has unfortunately led to circumstances where the country has changed (for the worse) to accomodate some of its immigrants.
I moved to a country with an open society where common sense and reason trump faith, not one where religious groups dictate and change social norms. Let us do our best to hold onto the former.
Hey man,
ReplyDeleteInteresting idea starting up this blog.
There's so much in the entry! It is hard to comment on haha. Have a lot of thoughts, but would probably find it easier to speak to you about them.
Maybe i'll go through them one by one later!
Siyam
Yeah it was supposed to be short but I just couldn't stop rambling.
ReplyDeleteI have often said that in my opinion Quebec has a huge problem with racism. And Herouxville is almost a homogeneous, small town rural part of the province. As such, they would be a typical hick town, comparable to many in the American south.
ReplyDeleteHow did some Muslims react?
a delegation of Muslim women from Montreal paid a visit to Herouxville dressed in traditional headscarves, or hijabs, and bearing gifts of pastry and books, hoping to appeal for tolerance.
Herouxville’s town council had already toned down some of the declaration’s more inflammatory statements and apologized to the women for the hurt it may have caused.
The visit was cordial and respectful."[link]
A right wing columnist writes "Nice Idea, Badly Written".
I however don't agree with your take on the kirpan. Keep in mind though that the supreme court did not allow the Sikh student to take a dagger into his class. They put a lot of restrictions on a kirpan so that in the end, it would be impossible to harm anyone with that. The kirpan was allowed not because it was JUST a religious reason, but AFTER lot of restrictions on it. A school can ask that the kirpan be blunt, limited in size, sheathed in sealed cases or clothing, and worn underneath clothing.
Canada has a precedent on reasonable accomodation of differing views, not ABSOLUTE accomodation.
I agree with you on most points regarding religious attire and whatnot. But still I believe that in a free society and specially one like Canada, you should be able to wear anything you want to. Strangely enough these types of problems have not shown up a lot down here in the south where I live. I can't recall any specific cases where a hijab or a niqab became a problem or an issue. And I live in the conservative bastion of Texas. The problem is when a community like Herouxville is trying to be proactive it further alienates the immigrant community which leads to more problems. Anyway, I agree that immigrants must make a genuine attempt to fit in rather than it being the other way around. Good read.
ReplyDeleteThe Rez.