Reasonable Accommodation
Recently the issue of reasonable accommodation has become a major issue in Quebec, so I thought I would weigh in on the issue. Before giving my opinion on the issue, I would like to condemn the town council of Herouxville, Mario Dumont, Pauline Marois, Gilles Duceppe, and Stephen Harper for trying to play into the fears of some about immigrants and minorities in order to garner more votes. To all the above, I say shame on you. In the case of Stephen Harper, I am not totally sure what to make of this, since he has put a lot of effort on winning over the "ethnic" votes in English Canada, but at the same time he will need to gain more seats in Quebec to win a majority and this won't come from Montreal, but rather from Rural Quebec, which is the same area Mario Dumont won several seats last spring on the issue of reasonable accommodation. Once again Harper, is putting electoral gain ahead of principles, with his recent making Muslim women wearing veils show their face as a big issue as well as his refusal to condemn Pauline Marois' policy of barring those who cannot speak French fluently from running for any public office even at the local level, despite the fact Harper, rightly in my mind, vigorously opposed Bill 101 in the past.
Before diving into this issue specifically, I would like to give my specific opinions on bilingualism and multiculturalism and these are my opinions only and not that of the Liberal Party necessarily. In respect to multiculturalism, the government should neither favour nor oppose either maintaining one's culture or assimilating. The decision to preserve one's culture or assimilate should be the decision of each and every individual and likewise how many generations down the line they wish to preserve their culture should also be the decision of each individual. I myself have some Swedish and Norwegian background, yet I speak neither language nor have I preserved any elements of either culture, while in the case of my English and Scottish ancestry, I may speak the language, but I don't consider myself either of those. Indeed my family has been in Canada since the early 1900s so I consider myself Canadian only, However I would not disrespect someone who choose to preserve their heritage even if they have been in Canada longer than me. By the same token the vast majority of my friends' families came to Canada even more recently and some have chosen to maintain their heritage while others not.
On the issue of bilingualism, I think it is important to remember that bilingualism was not about appeasing Quebec, but rather about ensuring both Francophone and Anglophone minorities had access to the government in the language of their choice. If anything bilingualism was more about protecting the rights of Francophones outside of Quebec who often had difficulty getting service in their own language prior to the official languages act of 1969. By the same token, bilingualism also protects the rights of Anglophone minorities in Quebec. This is why I totally condemn Pauline Marois' position that only those who speak French fluently can run for office at any level in Quebec. For starters, it is very difficult to get elected if one doesn't speak the predominate language in the community they represent, so the only areas a unlingual Anglophone could realistically get elected in Quebec is a few communities on the West Island of Montreal and some towns in the Ottawa Valley such as Shawville. I highly doubt Harper would have won his ten seats in Quebec if he didn't speak French, nor would have Mulroney won most of Quebec if he was a unilingual Anglophone. By the same token, Chretien wouldn't have won three back to back majorities nor would have Trudeau become prime-minister if either were unilingual Francophones, therefore I say leave this issue up to the electorate instead of imposing laws that deny Canadian citizens their fundamental right to run for office.
Now on the issue of reasonable accommodation, I generally believe that immigrants should be free to practice their customs as they wish so long as they don't harm others. In the overwhelming majority of cases, practicing their customs causes no harm to others and therefore we should not make an issue of it. In the few cases where it interferes with others, we should do whatever is possible to accommodate them and only prohibit it if accommodating it is not feasible. For example, when I was in High school, boys had to be clean shaven and likewise when I worked at a grocery store while going to university, males could only have moustaches. This could have been problematic for Sikhs and Orthodox Jews as their religion prohibits shaving, but in both cases they made exceptions for those who could not shave due to religious reasons. Since having facial hair harms no one, I support this exception. However, on the issue of allowing Sikhs to carry Kirpans to schools, this is a little more difficult as a Kirpan could potentially be used as a weapon. In this case, I believe the proper solution is either require them to use a non-metal Kirpan or have the Kirpan locked so no one can steal it and require the key be kept in a safe location. This would ensure schools remain safe while at the same time accommodating one's religious beliefs to the best they could in that same circumstance. In the case of those who have different sabbath days, I believe the company should do whatever possible to ensure they work other days in exchange for getting their sabbath day off, although I do realize this could be problematic for companies only operating Monday to Friday if the Sabbath day falls in one of those days. The important thing here, is the firm does whatever possible to accommodate them and only refuses if not plausible. On the issue of Muslim women wearing a veil showing their face, I should point out the overwhelming majority of Muslim women don't wear veils so we are dealing with a very small portion of the population, which is why I think this issue is blown well out of proportion. However, since we allow voters from overseas to mail in ballots without showing their faces, it seems a bit hypocritical to require them to show their faces. However, if we are going to require them to show their faces, I don't see why, as Dion suggested, we couldn't have them show it to a female election worker in private as opposed to requiring them to take off their veil in public in front of everyone else. The point of all this is we are a nation of immigrants since all of us except the First Nations are either immigrants ourselves or descendants of immigrants so if those of us who came here earlier from Britain or France refused to adopt the First Nation's culture, isn't hypocritical to ask more recent immigrants to fully adopt our culture. By the same token, everything has reasonable limits, but as I mention above we should only restrict cultural practices if they harm others.
Before diving into this issue specifically, I would like to give my specific opinions on bilingualism and multiculturalism and these are my opinions only and not that of the Liberal Party necessarily. In respect to multiculturalism, the government should neither favour nor oppose either maintaining one's culture or assimilating. The decision to preserve one's culture or assimilate should be the decision of each and every individual and likewise how many generations down the line they wish to preserve their culture should also be the decision of each individual. I myself have some Swedish and Norwegian background, yet I speak neither language nor have I preserved any elements of either culture, while in the case of my English and Scottish ancestry, I may speak the language, but I don't consider myself either of those. Indeed my family has been in Canada since the early 1900s so I consider myself Canadian only, However I would not disrespect someone who choose to preserve their heritage even if they have been in Canada longer than me. By the same token the vast majority of my friends' families came to Canada even more recently and some have chosen to maintain their heritage while others not.
On the issue of bilingualism, I think it is important to remember that bilingualism was not about appeasing Quebec, but rather about ensuring both Francophone and Anglophone minorities had access to the government in the language of their choice. If anything bilingualism was more about protecting the rights of Francophones outside of Quebec who often had difficulty getting service in their own language prior to the official languages act of 1969. By the same token, bilingualism also protects the rights of Anglophone minorities in Quebec. This is why I totally condemn Pauline Marois' position that only those who speak French fluently can run for office at any level in Quebec. For starters, it is very difficult to get elected if one doesn't speak the predominate language in the community they represent, so the only areas a unlingual Anglophone could realistically get elected in Quebec is a few communities on the West Island of Montreal and some towns in the Ottawa Valley such as Shawville. I highly doubt Harper would have won his ten seats in Quebec if he didn't speak French, nor would have Mulroney won most of Quebec if he was a unilingual Anglophone. By the same token, Chretien wouldn't have won three back to back majorities nor would have Trudeau become prime-minister if either were unilingual Francophones, therefore I say leave this issue up to the electorate instead of imposing laws that deny Canadian citizens their fundamental right to run for office.
Now on the issue of reasonable accommodation, I generally believe that immigrants should be free to practice their customs as they wish so long as they don't harm others. In the overwhelming majority of cases, practicing their customs causes no harm to others and therefore we should not make an issue of it. In the few cases where it interferes with others, we should do whatever is possible to accommodate them and only prohibit it if accommodating it is not feasible. For example, when I was in High school, boys had to be clean shaven and likewise when I worked at a grocery store while going to university, males could only have moustaches. This could have been problematic for Sikhs and Orthodox Jews as their religion prohibits shaving, but in both cases they made exceptions for those who could not shave due to religious reasons. Since having facial hair harms no one, I support this exception. However, on the issue of allowing Sikhs to carry Kirpans to schools, this is a little more difficult as a Kirpan could potentially be used as a weapon. In this case, I believe the proper solution is either require them to use a non-metal Kirpan or have the Kirpan locked so no one can steal it and require the key be kept in a safe location. This would ensure schools remain safe while at the same time accommodating one's religious beliefs to the best they could in that same circumstance. In the case of those who have different sabbath days, I believe the company should do whatever possible to ensure they work other days in exchange for getting their sabbath day off, although I do realize this could be problematic for companies only operating Monday to Friday if the Sabbath day falls in one of those days. The important thing here, is the firm does whatever possible to accommodate them and only refuses if not plausible. On the issue of Muslim women wearing a veil showing their face, I should point out the overwhelming majority of Muslim women don't wear veils so we are dealing with a very small portion of the population, which is why I think this issue is blown well out of proportion. However, since we allow voters from overseas to mail in ballots without showing their faces, it seems a bit hypocritical to require them to show their faces. However, if we are going to require them to show their faces, I don't see why, as Dion suggested, we couldn't have them show it to a female election worker in private as opposed to requiring them to take off their veil in public in front of everyone else. The point of all this is we are a nation of immigrants since all of us except the First Nations are either immigrants ourselves or descendants of immigrants so if those of us who came here earlier from Britain or France refused to adopt the First Nation's culture, isn't hypocritical to ask more recent immigrants to fully adopt our culture. By the same token, everything has reasonable limits, but as I mention above we should only restrict cultural practices if they harm others.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 5:54 PM
8 Comments:
Bilingualism does NOT protect English-speaking Quebecers, thanks to Bill 101. There are major restrictions on English signs and promotions even in areas that are overwhelmingly Anglophone.
Anonymous - You are mixing up provincial and federal laws. Bill 101, which I strongly disagree with, is a provincial law, whereas the official languages act is a federal law. In fact all federal buildings in Quebec are in both English and French and of equal size. In addition Anglophones have the constitutional right to send their children to school in English, have court trials done in English. Also all essential material on packages must be in both English and French. So while it is true the provincial government has done little to protect the rights of Anglophone minorities, this is not the case with the federal government. In addition, any province could pass a similiar law requiring signs to be predominately in English and in fact Sault Ste. Marie did this in 1990. Thankfully most Canadians would oppose such law, which is why none exist elsewhere.
You're right - Harper is trying to have it both ways. In Quebec the Tories are courting the ADQ vote - in fact most of the "Tory" activists in Quebec are ADQ because there isn't really a Conservative Party to speak of. Will this blow up in his face in terms of "ethnic" outreach?
In terms of his ethnic targeting in 905 it's hard to say where it will go but it's unlikely. Remember he tried to make inroads with "ethnic" voters with the issue of same-sex marriage: apparently he thought "ethnic" = bigot. That didn't go over too well.
Tory didn't do very well with the religious schools issue - the only seat they took was Thornhill - and Peter Shurman barely took that against the worst possible opponent in Mario Racco. Federally however Susan Kadis is very popular and that seat is unlikely to fall to the Conservatives, especially if Rosh Hashanah-gate proves serious. The seats that are most likely to swing to Harper in my view are Mississauga South and Oakville and they're very WASP.
As for the Scandinavians, they are probably the most invisible ethnic group in Canada, even though many people in Western Canada are of Scandinavian descent. I'd say the Brits cling to their old ways way more than they do! Do you write "Canadian" as your ethnic origin on the census? I write "Jewish" as an ethnic origin although I write "atheist" or "none" for the religion.
The seats that are most likely to swing to Harper in my view are Mississauga South and Oakville and they're very WASP.
I would also add Newmarket-Aurora in there where Belinda Stronach isn't riding, but it too is pretty WASP. I also don't think it is just ethnic vs. non-ethnic, but rather based on urban vs. rural. Even Torontonians who are 3rd generation Canadians or earlier are probably just as unlikely to vote Tory as a newly arrived Canadian. The reason is their positions on a whole host of issues don't reasonate well with urban voters. Most of the 905 belt is becoming less suburban and more a mere extension of Toronto which is why the Liberals won most by large margins and likely will continue to do so. The few ridings the Tories won such as Whitby-Oshawa and Burlington are still suburban in nature with a considerably lower population density than Toronto and a good distance from the city so that those living there are only likely to go into Toronto for work, but not likely to spend much time there besides that.
As for the Scandinavians, they are probably the most invisible ethnic group in Canada, even though many people in Western Canada are of Scandinavian descent. I'd say the Brits cling to their old ways way more than they do! Do you write "Canadian" as your ethnic origin on the census? I write "Jewish" as an ethnic origin although I write "atheist" or "none" for the religion.
Part of that is immigration from the Scandinavian countries mostly took place around the turn of the century. In fact according to statscan there are 360,000 Canadians of Norwegian ancestry and 285,000 of Swedish ancestry yet only 6,000 were born in Norway and 7,000 born in Sweden, so that may be partly why they are close to invisible. I would also add the Dutch as another largely invisible group since despite the fact the rank amongst the top ten largest ethnicities in Canada and are not limited to one section, but can be found in large numbers everywhere except Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador, one almost never hears them mentioned as a major ethnicity in Canada. I do wonder though if a lot of this has to do with the fact the Dutch tend to speak English fluently even before coming over here. When I visited the Netherlands, I found people spoke English almost as well as a Native speaker, whereas this was not the case in any other European country I've visited aside from Britain. On the list of ethnicities, I still lived at home when the last census was taken, but if asked now I would tick off Canadian, English, Scottish, Irish, Norwegian, and Swedish, and maybe even American (since my Scandinavian ancestors moved to the United States first before coming up to Canada.) For religion, I am of Protestant background, although I consider myself agnostic as I don't know or care whether there is a God.
I'll bet a lot of Liberals kind of wish now they had Martha Hall Findlay running in Newmarket-Aurora rather than Willowdale since the latter is a very safe Liberal seat now.
Re: WASPs and "nonethnic" Canadians in Toronto - indeed they have swung away from the Conservatives. I'm sure they vote Conservative at a higher rate than others, but they don't get the majority or plurality of their votes in the 416, anyway. When Toronto was a lot less diverse than it is now the PC's were competitive - not anymore!
Whitby-Oshawa and Burlington are far enough removed from Toronto to vote Tory. I think this explains James Moore's success in his riding as well which is kind of the BC counterpart.
As for the Scandinavians yes the foreign born element is very, very small. But the must have had an easier time assimilating than say, the Ukrainians (obviously being from eastern Europe was harder than being from northern Europe). While Toronto has a lot of foreign-born Ukrainians (old DP's and post-Soviet immigrants) there are few left in the Prairies - but certainly Ukrainian presence is still felt there as many second- and third-generation Ukrainians have some ties to their ethnicity. In fact it Ukrainian Canadians on the Prairies were very early supporters of Multiculturalism as an alternative to the "biculturalism" policies of Pearson as they felt excluded.
I'll bet a lot of Liberals kind of wish now they had Martha Hall Findlay running in Newmarket-Aurora rather than Willowdale since the latter is a very safe Liberal seat now.
I agree, although my understanding is she was nominated in Willowdale before Belinda Stronach decided not to seek re-election.
Re: WASPs and "nonethnic" Canadians in Toronto - indeed they have swung away from the Conservatives. I'm sure they vote Conservative at a higher rate than others, but they don't get the majority or plurality of their votes in the 416, anyway. When Toronto was a lot less diverse than it is now the PC's were competitive - not anymore!
I would say it is not so much they have swung away from the Conservatives, but more the Conservatives have swung away from them. For example, I think someone like Bill Davis or Joe Clark would still be electable in Toronto as Tory leader.
Whitby-Oshawa and Burlington are far enough removed from Toronto to vote Tory. I think this explains James Moore's success in his riding as well which is kind of the BC counterpart.
James Moore's riding is actually a bit closer to Vancouver, however since Vancouver is a smaller city you don't have to go quite as far out. Ridings such as Cambridge, Ottawa West-Nepean, and Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale are all relatively close to Kitchener, Ottawa, and Hamilton in each case, but since they are smaller centres one doesn't have to go as far. In addition James Moore benefited from the protest vote that voted Alliance in 2000, while in 2004 he had the advantage of incumbency. If James Moore were to not seek re-election, I think his riding would be vulnerable, but as long as he stays on, it should stay Tory.
As for the Scandinavians yes the foreign born element is very, very small. But the must have had an easier time assimilating than say, the Ukrainians (obviously being from eastern Europe was harder than being from northern Europe). While Toronto has a lot of foreign-born Ukrainians (old DP's and post-Soviet immigrants) there are few left in the Prairies - but certainly Ukrainian presence is still felt there as many second- and third-generation Ukrainians have some ties to their ethnicity. In fact it Ukrainian Canadians on the Prairies were very early supporters of Multiculturalism as an alternative to the "biculturalism" policies of Pearson as they felt excluded.
You are right on that count. In fact the reason the United States had very open immigration up until 1924 is until the 1880s, immigration overwhelmingly came from the Northwestern quadrant of Europe (Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands), but as it shifted more towards Southern and Eastern Europe around the turn of the century (Italy and Poland primarily, but included many others), the government tightened laws since they felt they would assimilate less quickly. In addition I too think multiculturalism as opposed to biculturalism makes more sense as a large chunk if not the majority of Canadians are of neither British or French ancestry and with very little immigration from those countries today, this group will continue to increase. I do however, believe in bilingualism as it would be impossible to provide services in every ethnic language, never mind it is pretty rare for those with foreign grand-parents to still speak the language where they came from as their mother tongue. In fact most of my co-workers with foreign born parents have English as their mother tongue and speak very little of their parents language despite the fact a large chunk of them hold citizenship in the country of their parents, have family there, and travel there frequently.
I totally agree - almost all immigrants want to learn English (and/or French). The second generation often grow up speaking the ethnic language but they certainly speak English fluently. It is very very rare for third generation Canadians to speak their grandparents' language - in fact it is probably less common today than it was in the past.
I would say in the past the only reason it was more common for the third generation to still speak their grand-parents' language is Canada was far less tolerant of those of different cultures and they often tended to be more isolated. In the case of the Prairies, there were many block settlements, whereas today, people of different ethnic origins mix a lot more and in fact I don't even know the ancestries of half of my friends, nor do I really care.
In the case of second generation, I find it depends on whether they have just one parent from a non-English/French speaking country as well as what age they came at. If the parent immigrated to Canada as a child and only one parent is from a non-English/French speaking country, their children are far less likely to speak their language then if both parents come from the same foreign country and they both came as adults since in the latter case the parents will likely converse with each other in their native tongue. Although with my Grandma who had Norwegian parents, she never learned Norwegian and in fact her parents would converse in Norwegian whenever they didn't want the children to know what they were saying.
Post a Comment
<< Home