Québec’s proposed Charter of Values

Often, written words cause a major stir. The latest one worth a look is the Parti Québecois’ proposed Charter of Quebec Values.

The Quebec government has made a cursory attempt at providing the document in English and in French, but key parts, such as the introduction and the Message from the Ministre responsable des Institutions démocratiques et de la Participation citoyenne (Minister responsible for democratic institutions and citizenship), Bernard Drainville, are available only in French.

The Charter is not a basic statement of the society’s values; it’s a response to the growing and vocal Muslim community in Quebec. It begins with

“Les orientations proposées par le gouvernement ont pour objectif de poursuivre la démarche de séparation des religions et de l’État...”

“The objective of the ideas proposed by the government is the pursuit of the separation of religion and the State...”

Only in section 4 does the document get to what the proposed values are, and those are relatively brief: equality of women and men; and shared historical inheritance. These are the “common values” that the government says that Quebec’s people share.

Not much, really. Vague. Incomplete.

The proposed charter

The Charter proposal begins with a statement of concern:

Since 2006, a number of high-profile religious accommodation cases have given rise to a profound discomfort in Quebec. To maintain social peace and promote harmony, we must prevent tensions from growing.

Clear rules on religious accommodations will contribute to integration and social cohesion. They will benefit all Quebecers, including newcomers. We will be best served by a state that treats everyone the same.

I agree. Hey, if the state is obliged to treat everyone the same, why can’t people put up signs in English as big as in French?

I have to ask: why this, now? Quebec has been a remarkably open, if not completely tolerant society for decades. Montreal itself is almost as ethnically diverse as Toronto, the most ethnically diverse city in the world. Jews, Sikhs, Mennonites (and other religions, although I don’t know all that prescribe what people wear) and Muslims have been able wear clothes according to their religious convictions, without any problem.

This is not the first recent indication of the discomfort that some people, at least, in Quebec feel toward the growing Muslim community. A few years ago, the town of Hérouxville tried to ban Shariah law, and in 2005, the Quebec Assembly voted unanimously against allowing Sharia law in civil cases.

And who can forget the Quebec government’s unfortunate guide for immigrants that advised against honour killing and cooking of smelly foods?

I think there are two forces at work:

First, the dominant French-Canadian, French-speaking, white and nominally Catholic culture in Quebec has faded, replaced not only by the secular French-speaking and arguably slightly multi-ethnic culture that the government insists exists, but a more diverse culture. The “Quebecois” identity envisioned by the separatists from the 60s through the 80s (let’s face it, separatism stopped being cool by 1970), the identity supposedly protected by Bill 101, has mostly faded, especially in Montreal.

The other force is the resurgence of religion in daily life, especially among Muslims. The younger generation of Muslims is more observant of the outward aspects of their religion, including clothing, than before. This coupled with their increasing numbers means that Quebecers, and all Canadians, see more women and girls in obvious religious garb.

Backlash

Half of Quebec, including intellectuals, people of just about every religion represented in the province, and half of the separatists oppose the proposal.

What were they thinking?

That’s to be expected. What’s surprising is that the proponents of the Charter seemed totally umprepared for the backlash, as if they can’t understand why, for example, a Jewish prosecutor object if he would no longer be allowed to wear a yarmulke if he wanted to in court; or why a Sikh doctor should protest if he were disallowed from wearing a turban during hospital rounds or consultations in a CLSC clinic.

Whom are they hurting? Even the most strident believer in the PQ cannot believe that the fact that a woman wears a scarf on her head would cause someone else to change religions. “Oh, that is SUCH a nice scarf, I want one! I’ll even change religions so that I can wear it!”

No, the separatists cannot believe that.

I understand the other arguments: that Quebec is trying to protect its culture. But culture is a living thing, and that means it changes all the time. If its outward form is different from what political leaders remember from their childhood, they’ll just have to suck it up. Enforcing cultural norms has never worked and it isn’t going to start working now.

Is the charter fair?

To be frank, the proposed charter is discriminatory. It developed in response to a particular group, and affects religious minorities unfairly. If it doesn’t hurt anyone else, why shouldn’t a woman wear a scarf on her head? In a free society like Canada, she should have that right as an equal citizen. Yes, she should also be protected against abuse from anyone if she decides not to wear the scarf, too.

Just to be clear, I don't think that anyone should be allowed to wear clothing that puts themselves or anyone else in danger. That's why I don't think that girls should wear a hijab on the soccer pitch or while doing any other sport - because there is a danger of choking. Similarly, no one should be allowed onto a construction site without a hard-hat. I don't care what your religion says about that.

It's amazing that this piece of cloth can cause so much trouble.

And to be frank, I also think that the hijab in particular is also discriminatory. I’m not an expert on Islam, but from what I understand, the hijab itself is not a requirement of Islam. It’s something that some people choose to wear, and there are plenty of upstanding Muslim women in the world who choose not to wear it.

And let’s remember that some Muslim women feel pressured, or are absolutely pressured, to cover their heads. Not following the dictates of their culture and their families has caused the deaths of many Muslim women around the world, including in Canada. Don’t forget the murders of Geeti, Sahar and Zeinab Shafia’s and Rona Amir Mohammad, in the name of “honour.” No, it wasn’t because they didn’t wear hijabs, or not only because of that, but it is part of the same pattern of enforcing culture.

Isn’t that what the PQ is trying to do?

I think that people should be allowed to wear such a scarf. Hell, if I wanted to wear one, I don’t think that anyone should prevent me from doing so. Of course, I expect to be criticized, to be thought of as crazy or at least of having very poor taste.

Speaking of bad taste... maybe
Richard Simmons should put
something on his head.

I have to admit, I think a religious prescription on clothing is backward. But it you feel it’s a mark of respect, by all means, do it. And no democratic government should prevent you from doing it.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Rolling Stone

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

People are upset over Rolling Stone’s cover depicting Dzhokhar Tsnarnaev — for all the wrong reasons.

Rolling Stone has earned a reputation for gutsy reporting, for articles and covers that did not shy away from controversy. And at first glance, this cover does that: it features a picture of accused, indicted terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who, at the time the photograph was taken, was a very attractive young man.

And that’s what the criticism is about:

“They’re trying to make him look like a rock star and he’s a horrible person that did a horrible thing,” said Rachel Carfarella, who dislikes the magazine cover.

“The new ‘Rolling Stone’ cover is disgusting. It sensationalizes Marc’s pain as well as all the other victims and survivors. It is an insult to the families and people impacted that day,” said the friend of a victim — reported in 7News WHDH.com, Boston’s NBC station.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino wrote to Rolling Stone: “Your August 3 cover rewards a terrorist with celebrity treatment. It is ill conceived, at best, and reaffirms a terrible message that destruction gains fame for killers and their “causes”… — reported in Time magazine online. 

People are upset because of way Tsarnaev looks. Definitely, the picture makes Tsarnaev look like a rock star. He’s handsome, well dressed, his hair is perfect, and the setting — the cover of the Rolling Stone, which, as the song says, is a place for rock stars — well, it all evokes the sex symbol.

But read the cutline on the cover: “How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by His Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster.”

Rolling Stone is telling the world that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a monster.

Facts

Tsarnaev has been charged and indicted in connection with the Boston Marathon bombings in April. He has pled not guilty. He has not been tried, yet.

It seems to me that in the US, a country that loves to remind itself and the world about its constitution and bill of rights, that an accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty in court. And I remember in journalism school, how professors admonished students to be very careful about describing accused people. In Canada in the 20^th century, as I recall, even using the word “alleged” was risky for a journalist — it could lead to prejudicing a jury.

The cover headline is not the only place where Rolling Stone crosses that line. Read the article, and you’ll find a lot of language that assumes Tsarnaev’s guilt.

The author, Janet Reitman, spoke with Tsarnaev’s teachers, friends and family, then presented their memories and opinions as facts. While it is a fact that these people said these things, Reitman is a professional journalist and Rolling Stone is a long-standing publication whose editors know how publication in print adds weight to opinions like this.

The article begins with a description of the Tsarnaev family, how they came from Russia and settled into Cambridge, Massachusetts. Dzhokhar began calling himself “Jahar,” and sometimes “Joe” as part of assimilating, and hung out with American friends. He became legendary for selling pot and getting high.

At one point during his junior year in high school, he expressed sympathy with some acts of terrorism. One of his friends says “he said he felt some of those acts were justified because of what the U.S. does in other countries, and that they do it so frequently,dropping bombs all the time."

That’s where the article begins subtly characterizing Tsarnaev as a monster, condemning him in text.

In retrospect, Jahar's comment about 9/11 could be seen in the context of what criminal profilers call "leakage": a tiny crack in an otherwise carefully crafted facade that, if recognized — it's often not — provides a key into the person's interior world. "On cases where I've interviewed these types of people, the key is looking past their exterior and getting access to that interior, which is very hard," says Tom Neer, a retired agent from the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit and now a senior associate with the Soufan Group, which advises the government on counterterrorism. "Most people have a public persona as well as a private persona, but for many people, there's a secret side, too. And the secret side is something that they labor really hard to protect."

The article goes even further in characterizing Jahar’s brother, Tamerlan, who was killed in a gunfight in the pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers, by quoting his family: “His uncle Ruslan had urged him to join the Army ... But Tamerlan laughed, his uncle recalls, for suggesting he kill ‘our brother Muslims.’"

The article cuts abruptly from detailed descriptions of the brothers’ daily lives to generalizations about terrorists. The impression of the Tsarnaevs as terrorists in inescapable.

... in January, Tamerlan and his wife reportedly lost the Section 8 housing subsidy that had enabled them to afford their apartment, leaving them with the prospect of a move...Why a person with an extreme or "radical" ideology may decide to commit violence is an inexact science, but experts agree that there must be a cognitive opening of some sort.

This next paragraph makes the huge leap from journalism to conjecture:

For Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the explanation for his anger was all around him. And so, dissuaded from his quest to wage jihad in Dagestan, he apparently turned his gaze upon America, the country that, in his estimation, had caused so much suffering, most of all his own.

By the last page of the article, Reitman completes the transition from reporting facts to presenting others’ opinions as facts, and painting her subject as a monster. She desbribes how three of Jahar Tsarnaev’s friends, Robel, Dias and Azamat, came to the apartment Tsarnaev shared following the Boston bombing and noticed

Jahar's backpack, which the boys noticed had some fireworks inside, emptied of powder [apparently, Jahar’s backpack did not match the one on the surveillance videos]. Not sure what to do, they grabbed the bag as well as Jahar's computer, and went back to Dias and Azamat's off-campus apartment, where they "started to freak out, because it became clear from a CNN report . . . that Jahar was one of the Boston Marathon bombers," Robel later told the FBI.

Did you notice that: the interview subjects, Tsarnaev’s friends, started to freak out because it became clear from a CNN report that Jahar was one of the bombers. Rolling Stone is not the first to assume Tsarnaev's guilt.

Tsarnaev has already been tried and convicted by tabloid TV news. Not by a court and jury, which has high standards for those silly things called “facts.” Instead, the US public are making conclusions based on TV reporting, which is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable, and then taking that as indisputable truth.

From the first release by police of surveillance video, the mainstream media have all immediately accepted the Tsarnaev brothers' guilt as fact.

Reitman makes a concluding statement about Dzhokhar Tsnarnaev, where she completes her portrait of a monster she has created:

The contents of Jahar's closely guarded psyche, meanwhile, may never be fully understood. Nor, most likely, will his motivations — which is quite common with accused terrorists. "There is no single precipitating event or stressor," says Neer. "Instead, what you see with most of these people is a gradual process of feeling alienated or listless or not connected. But what they all have in common is a whole constellation of things that aren't working right."

In her own terms, author Reitman has succeeded. She brought the readers of her article from a conception of her subject, Dzhokhar Tsnarnaev, from cute American kid to monster terrorist.

But in terms of justice, of human rights, her article contributes to the demonization of a human being. Will it be possible for Tsarnaev to get a fair trial now?

I anticipate a backlash to this post; there are people who will say that a monster who bombs innocent people does not deserve a fair trial.

But here’s the thing, as the young people say: Tsarnaev has pleaded not guilty. What if he isn’t the one?

It is possible. One purpose of a trial is to sort out this kind of question, and Reitman’s article, and the similar coverage in all other US media, makes that trial more difficult.

That’s why people should be upset about the article — about the text, but not about the image. 

Guest-post: Anti-Quebec logic



On US Independence Day, in the spirit of promoting democracy, pluralism, minority rights and other values the USA says it stands for, I'm re-blogging a post from the caustic but clear Eclipse News. The following essay originally appeared on Eclipse News on June 11.

By Evan Zenobia

ANCIENT ROME—It looks as if the Québec Soccer Federation has really stepped in it, this time.

It’s not really their fault though. It’s just that the English Canadian media has been dumping shit all over the sidewalk.

Yes, ever since the FSQ announced that turbans would, along with all other headgear, be impermissible on soccer pitches, everyone from rags like Maclean’s and the National Post to federal cabinet ministers have denounced the regulation, thundering righteous, theatrical indignation and hurling accusations of racism and xenophobia at Québec.

By now, you’ve probably heard or read the standard narrative. Driven by either a radical secularism gone mad or just by Québec’s innate and distinctly un-Canadian xenophobic racism, Sikhs were singled out by FSQ and swept off the soccer field. Now, Sikh children will be barred from the game, cruelly excluded by racist Québécois officials.



The football team of India wears no head gear, turbans or otherwise.



This isn’t the first time the Sikh community’s religious obligations have run across trouble in Québec. In 2010-11, a scandal erupted over the barring of kirpan (knife)-bearing Sikhs from entering the Nation Assembly. The FSQ faced similar criticism for banning the hijab. And, the standard reaction from the conservative English-Canadian establishment had been to accuse Québec of racism or xenophobia.

But that’s not what’s happening.

According to the FSQ, headgear is not allowed on the soccer pitch. You can’t wear a baseball cap, or a cowboy hat, or a tuque, or a crown, or a German war helment. The rule is no headgear. A turban is headgear. Therefore, turbans are not allowed.

So now Québec is being accused of racism because in Québec everybody, regardless of their religion, is subject to the same rules and regulations.

When you treat everyone the same, that’s not discrimination, it’s called equality. And I know that conservatives actually hate that, but they should be honest about it instead of accusing the 7 million people of Québec of intolerance and hatred.

In any case, the FSQ will follow FIFA’s lead if the international body allows turban. But until FIFA makes its decision, Vic Toews and Parm Gil and Jason Kenney and the esteemed “writers” at the authoritative rags of Canada’s business classes should quit their hysterics about “intolerance,” and maybe practice a bit of tolerance to Canada’s second largest province.

Evan Zenobia is the Ottawa-based co-publisher of Eclipse News.