Saguenay mayor rejects edict banning crucifix, prayer

[Shwa]

Interesting story from the Globe. I caught attention of this listening to talk radio this afternoon on 1010 in TO.

Saguenay mayor rejects edict banning crucifix, prayer

I am really having a hard time understanding how someone's "freedom of conscience" is impeded by a small nod to some well-known cultural symbols and a prayer. The fact that this city council was imposed upon by a provincial body while the town itself deems the symbols and prayer appropriate raises some interesting questions about freedom of expression. It ought to work both ways...

The provinces march toward secularism has met its match in the Kingdom of the Saguenay, where a voluble and religiously devout mayor has vowed to fight to preserve the citys Roman Catholic traditions.

Mayor Jean Tremblay announced Wednesday that he refuses to heed a judgment by the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal ordering him to cease reciting a Christian prayer before city council meetings and to remove the chambers crucifix and statue.

...

People in the majority in Quebec are feeling like they are being made to make a lot of concessions to religious minorities, and yet when their religious symbols are in question, there is no conceding on the other side, said Daniel Weinstock, a University of Montreal professor and Canada Research Chair in Ethics and Political Philosophy. That is what is fuelling the fire.

Mr. Tremblay, meanwhile, said that at the next council meeting in March he will insist on reciting the prayer as usual.

We French Canadians have become too meek. Our country wasnt founded by meek people, Mr. Tremblay said. When Obama was sworn in, there was a prayer that lasted almost 15 minutes. No one commented. We recite a 20-second prayer and everyone starts crying.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

I am really having a hard time understanding how someone's "freedom of conscience" is impeded by a small nod to some well-known cultural symbols and a prayer.

Really ? Take a look around at the over reaction when Ontario proposed that religious laws be allowed to be used in dispute resolution (by choice, mind you !) and you'll get a hint of it.

I suppose starting council with a Muslim prayer would be acceptable to people if the mayor decided it.

All in all, it's a stupid fight for political points. Ontario towns started declaring themselves English only in the 1980s too, for much the same reason. Luckily sanity won out.

[Shwa]

Really ? Take a look around at the over reaction when Ontario proposed that religious laws be allowed to be used in dispute resolution (by choice, mind you !) and you'll get a hint of it.

I understand the over-reaction and religious laws are still used for plenty of disputes.

I suppose starting council with a Muslim prayer would be acceptable to people if the mayor decided it.

I think the distinction here is that the City Council is refusing to abide by the rules since they can effectively overrule the mayor; that is, the mayor ain't in it on his own. What if Wilno town council had someone recite something in *gasp* Polish? But "what if" right? What if, along with a small prayer, Brampton or Mississauga recited a 20 second Muslim prayer? Do you see a slippery slope?

All in all, it's a stupid fight for political points. Ontario towns started declaring themselves English only in the 1980s too, for much the same reason. Luckily sanity won out.

Perhaps. But I am sensing something else here.

[wyly]

Interesting story from the Globe. I caught attention of this listening to talk radio this afternoon on 1010 in TO.

Saguenay mayor rejects edict banning crucifix, prayer

I am really having a hard time understanding how someone's "freedom of conscience" is impeded by a small nod to some well-known cultural symbols and a prayer. The fact that this city council was imposed upon by a provincial body while the town itself deems the symbols and prayer appropriate raises some interesting questions about freedom of expression. It ought to work both ways...

but why the need for a prayer Shwa?...if people feel such a strong need to pray why not do so at home, why the need to make a public display of it? ...what is about a town council meeting that requires a prayer?...do people feel a need to pray before every concert or sporting event as well?...

it's as irrational as school prayer, why inflict on others children who do not follow the religion with a prayer when that daily prayer that a parent requires for his/her child could be done at home with the family in 20 seconds, why the insistence on a forced mass indoctrination inflicted on those who do not share the belief...

it's important to make the separation of church and state absolute...

[lukin]

, why the insistence on a forced mass indoctrination inflicted on those who do not share the belief...

The only forced mass indoctrination happening in schools is the climate change fraud.

Another display of hate ignorance from wyly.

[August1991]

It's more complicated.

Here's an English report:

Despite a verdict by Quebec's human rights tribunal that called on the city of Saguenay to end the practice of reciting a Christian prayer at the start of council meetings, the crucifix, a symbol of Christianity, is staying in the Quebec National Assembly.

Montreal Gazette

----

I am intrigued with this idea of three values, above others in a human rights list. Are we now to have a hierarchy of values/rights?

IMV, a Charter of Rights - like the US Constitution - simply limits the powers of the State. There is no hierarchy. It is simply a list of what the State cannot do.

Edited February 18, 2011 by August1991

[Shwa]

but why the need for a prayer Shwa?...if people feel such a strong need to pray why not do so at home, why the need to make a public display of it? ...what is about a town council meeting that requires a prayer?...do people feel a need to pray before every concert or sporting event as well?...

it's as irrational as school prayer, why inflict on others children who do not follow the religion with a prayer when that daily prayer that a parent requires for his/her child could be done at home with the family in 20 seconds, why the insistence on a forced mass indoctrination inflicted on those who do not share the belief...

it's important to make the separation of church and state absolute...

Prayer, because that is what they want as a community. We can say, that to us prayer and the odd symbol of religion is unimportant in a city council meeting. We might think it is irrational, but to them it is perfectly rational. Perhaps for some of them it is a comforting and orienting bit of language that ties them to their tradition and sense of place and importance. But do we have the right - or better put - should the province have the right to mandate that sort of thing to a municipality on the basis of a single complaint?

I would figure that if that community decided they didn't want the prayer or the symbols, there is a fair and democratic way to deal with the issue based on this wishes of the community.

[fellowtraveller]

I guess Quebec is full of rednecks then.

[Molly]

I am really having a hard time understanding how someone's "freedom of conscience" is impeded by a small nod to some well-known cultural symbols and a prayer. The fact that this city council was imposed upon by a provincial body while the town itself deems the symbols and prayer appropriate raises some interesting questions about freedom of expression. It ought to work both ways...

Neither you nor anyone else yet knows whether the town deems the prayer appropriate. After the next municipal election there will be some indication, though no doubt it won't be the only issue upon which folks base their vote. Until then? Pfft! There is no such mandate.

However, even if it is does gain apparent approval at such a municipal election, religious practice is still not a matter of majority vote, and dictating public religious practice sure as H-E-double-toothpicks doesn't fall under the unilateral jurisdiction of mayors.

[Shwa]

Neither you nor anyone else yet knows whether the town deems the prayer appropriate. After the next municipal election there will be some indication, though no doubt it won't be the only issue upon which folks base their vote. Until then? Pfft! There is no such mandate.

Well not quite. There are plenty of municpal issues that can - and usually are - resolved without the requirement for it to be voted on like a referendum. I am sure that if there were enough outcry from the citizens, the council would be considering removal of the prayer and symbols. The fact that there hasn't been an outcry for all these years would lend a strong probability to the citizens deeming the prayer entirely appropriate. But I dunno, maybe they are all apathetic over there in Saguenay.

However, even if it is does gain apparent approval at such a municipal election, religious practice is still not a matter of majority vote, and dictating public religious practice sure as H-E-double-toothpicks doesn't fall under the unilateral jurisdiction of mayors.

Very good point, however, the recitation of the prayer or hanging of the religious symbols is not a unilateral decision by the mayor since the city has a council and citizins that could - if they wanted to - have those things removed. There doesn't seem to be any of that or even a hint of it thus far, although it might come up now that has become news.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Shwa

[Mr.Canada]

I guess Quebec is full of rednecks then.

Yeah, only rednecks believe in God or have sense of tradition.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[Molly]

The fact that there hasn't been an outcry for all these years would lend a strong probability to the citizens deeming the prayer entirely appropriate. But I dunno, maybe they are all apathetic over there in Saguenay.

From your own link: Still, the pro-secular group that pushed for the prayer ban in Saguenay says it will continue its fight to strip religion from public spaces. The Mouvement laïque québécois, or secular movement of Quebec, says it was dismayed with Mr. Tremblay’s insistence on fighting the court ruling.

The ruling last Friday came after a citizen, Alain Simoneau, complained that the council prayer violated his freedom of conscience. The court agreed and awarded him $30,000 in damages.

“Ours is not a struggle against symbols, it’s a struggle to maintain the neutrality of public institutions,” said Luc Alarie, the group’s lawyer. Mr. Simoneau was awarded damages after suffering from sustained harassment as well as being publicly ostracized by Mr. Tremblay, Mr. Alarie said.

That would, I believe, be a pretty good example of public outcry. Not so apathetic, those folks from Saguenay.

[Molly]

And I didn't say anything about a need for a referendum. One need not have a referendum in order to establish some semblance of mandate.

However, unless I see some evidence that the question of enforcing Christian religious practice on municipal government was discussed during the election, and the mayor at some point stated his opinion and his intention to play religious enforcer and scofflaw, then I stand on that statement: there is no mandate.

[fellowtraveller]

Yeah, only rednecks believe in God or have sense of tradition.

God bless them every one, except the non-Christians who will burn in Hell for eternity as they deserve.

[bloodyminded]

God bless them every one, except the non-Christians who will burn in Hell for eternity as they deserve.

Yep, the overwhelming, vast majority of all humanity. And only the relatively tiny, arrogant band of self-aggrandizing elitists get it right, and will be rewarded. It's an excellent tautology.

[Molly]

Also from that link:

In an interview, Mr. Tremblay said he is fighting because he believes French Canadians have become too “pliant” in accommodating minorities while failing to stick up for their own beliefs. At least 90 per cent of Saguenay is Catholic, he said.

“Why is it us Christians that always have to bend? Our values have no importance. You try stopping a Jew or Muslim from praying where he wants,” he said. “We’re ready to respect everyone, but we also want to be respected. It’s gone too far. “

I find this perspective completely bizarre- irrational, presumptive, based on entirely false premises and downright ignorant.

In the first place, his assertion that 90% of the citizens are Catholic is extremely, extremely unlikely even if 100% of them were born into culturally Roman Catholic families. Even given that Saguenay citizens are older, less educated, economically poorer and every other demographic more inclined to practice a religion, it could still only have a leg in truth if one assumes that Catholicism is the default polition- that every person who has not loudly, actively repudiated Catholicism is a Catholic.

The further stretch that this is somehow Christianity vs. (Islam, Judaism, what-have-you) is equally rediculous. It's imposition of religious practice on pointedly secular, inclusive activities.

The most preposterous sentence in his comments? "We’re ready to respect everyone.." Actions speak louder than words, Buddy.

[fellowtraveller]

In an interview, Mr. Tremblay said he is fighting because he believes French Canadians have become too “pliant” in accommodating minorities while failing to stick up for their own beliefs. At least 90 per cent of Saguenay is Catholic, he said.

“Why is it us Christians that always have to bend? Our values have no importance. You try stopping a Jew or Muslim from praying where he wants,” he said. “We’re ready to respect everyone, but we also want to be respected. It’s gone too far. “

I find this perspective completely bizarre- irrational, presumptive, based on entirely false premises and downright ignorant.

Do you believe that Quebec is a scoiety that is tolerant of other cultures?

[Shwa]

...

The ruling last Friday came after a citizen, Alain Simoneau, complained that the council prayer violated his freedom of conscience. The court agreed and awarded him $30,000 in damages.

...

That would, I believe, be a pretty good example of public outcry. Not so apathetic, those folks from Saguenay.

A single citizen is an example of "public outcry?" Huh. I want to own the city to give me the parkland in my neighbourhood. Do you think they should if I make a request to them and create a "public outcry?"

MLQ - Quebec Secular Movement

Now it could be that there are many "folks from Saguenay" that belong to the MLQ, but if that were the case then you would think that the "public outcry" would be a few more than "a" single person. Wouldn't you?

I would.

[Shwa]

And I didn't say anything about a need for a referendum. One need not have a referendum in order to establish some semblance of mandate.

However, unless I see some evidence that the question of enforcing Christian religious practice on municipal government was discussed during the election, and the mayor at some point stated his opinion and his intention to play religious enforcer and scofflaw, then I stand on that statement: there is no mandate.

Then there is no mandate for change either, which is the point since there is no "enforcing" what is already accepted as a normal practice. And a fairly benign one too it would appear.

[Molly]

Do you believe that Quebec is a scoiety that is tolerant of other cultures?

Is that a trick question? (It's not an easy one to give a simple answer to.)

No, I don't... but I do recognize it as having a far better sense of the cynical secular and a higher tolerance for a great many activities and viewpoints than much of the rest of tight-sphinctered North America. One of the traits shared with and no doubt carried from the motherland is limitless cultural conceit.

Does that adequately place my neck in the noose for you?

[Molly]

A single citizen is an example of "public outcry?" Huh. I want to own the city to give me the parkland in my neighbourhood. Do you think they should if I make a request to them and create a "public outcry?"

MLQ - Quebec Secular Movement

Now it could be that there are many "folks from Saguenay" that belong to the MLQ, but if that were the case then you would think that the "public outcry" would be a few more than "a" single person. Wouldn't you?

I would.

And that would be a silly assumption, on many levels.

Outcry is difficult to quantify, but our household is no stranger to municipal government. I know that substantial discontent is indicated by the reciept of a mere two letters on a single subject. One letter can be a lonely crank, but still carries more weight than several phone calls, each of which is more meaningful than an inboxful of e-mails... The foundation of an organization of more than a handful of members and the initiation of a lawsuit in the name of a non-member... is HUGE.

When a complainant can expect harrassment and even assault for stepping forward, then the act of stepping forward represents very, very meaningful 'outcry' indeed.

[Molly]

Then there is no mandate for change either, which is the point since there is no "enforcing" what is already accepted as a normal practice. And a fairly benign one too it would appear.

Obviously NOT accepted, else there would be no complaint, no law against, no human rights ruling, no lawsuit, no civil award. How much more evidence of the absence of acceptance of it do you need?

Obviously there IS a mandate for change, else there would be no complaint, no human rights ruling, no lawsuit yada, yada ... How many times and ways must it be established, legistlated and ruled to be out-of-line before that mandate is recognized?

Obviously NOT benign else no award for personal damages!

http://www.mlq.qc.ca/interventions-militantes/priere-municipale/municipal-prayers/

In 2008 mayor Yves Lévesque of Trois-Rivières decided to cease the reciting of prayers at council meetings of that municipality, thus conforming to the recommendations of the CDPDJ. But this apparent victory turned out to be rather disappointing when it was learned that the mayor had decided to have the prayer recited by citizens in his stead. The situation took a decidedly revolting turn when the complainant, Louise Hubert, was seen in a television news report to be the target of copious booing, insults and even pushing during the municipal meeting of January 19, 2009. It was clear that mayor Lévesque found this incident to be rather amusing, and made no effort to re-establish order other than by asking Ms. Hubert to be quiet, when she was only making a legitimate attempt to intervene during the question period in order to ask the mayor for his official response to the CDPDJ. Ms. Hubert, fearing for her safety, requested police assistance when leaving the meeting. These alarming events were such that, on the day following the altercation, the CDPDJ found it necessary to issue an open letter to the news media, calling for calm.

Ms. Hubert has subsequently brought formal assault charges against two citizens. She also has the possibility of submitting a new complaint to CDPDJ by virtue of the fact that the reciting of prayer by meeting participants, as instigated by mayor Lévesque, contravenes Quebec legislation concerning cities and towns. This legislation limits the right of speech of citizens during municipal meetings to asking questions of elected officials or of public officers present at the meeting.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Molly

[Shwa]

When a complainant can expect harrassment and even assault for stepping forward, then the act of stepping forward represents very, very meaningful 'outcry' indeed.

I'd disagree since you modified the word 'outcry' with the word 'public' thus changing the signification of the actual concept. One person stepping out could be construed as 'outcry' of course, but certainly not 'public outcry.' Unless you mean 'public' referring to a sense of place and not people. In which case a pedophile publically advocating for the lowering of the age of consent to, say, 8 year olds, fully expecting harrassment and even assault, constitutes 'public outcry.'

The use of pedophile as an example is extreme and a bit cheap, I admit. But there it is.

[Shwa]

Obviously NOT accepted, else there would be no complaint, no law against, no human rights ruling, no lawsuit, no civil award. How much more evidence of the absence of acceptance of it do you need?

Obviously there IS a mandate for change, else there would be no complaint, no human rights ruling, no lawsuit yada, yada ... How many times and ways must it be established, legistlated and ruled to be out-of-line before that mandate is recognized?

Obviously NOT benign else no award for personal damages!

http://www.mlq.qc.ca/interventions-militantes/priere-municipale/municipal-prayers/

In 2008 mayor Yves Lévesque of Trois-Rivières decided to cease the reciting of prayers at council meetings of that municipality, thus conforming to the recommendations of the CDPDJ. But this apparent victory turned out to be rather disappointing when it was learned that the mayor had decided to have the prayer recited by citizens in his stead. The situation took a decidedly revolting turn when the complainant, Louise Hubert, was seen in a television news report to be the target of copious booing, insults and even pushing during the municipal meeting of January 19, 2009. It was clear that mayor Lévesque found this incident to be rather amusing, and made no effort to re-establish order other than by asking Ms. Hubert to be quiet, when she was only making a legitimate attempt to intervene during the question period in order to ask the mayor for his official response to the CDPDJ. Ms. Hubert, fearing for her safety, requested police assistance when leaving the meeting. These alarming events were such that, on the day following the altercation, the CDPDJ found it necessary to issue an open letter to the news media, calling for calm.

Ms. Hubert has subsequently brought formal assault charges against two citizens. She also has the possibility of submitting a new complaint to CDPDJ by virtue of the fact that the reciting of prayer by meeting participants, as instigated by mayor Lévesque, contravenes Quebec legislation concerning cities and towns. This legislation limits the right of speech of citizens during municipal meetings to asking questions of elected officials or of public officers present at the meeting.

Yes, and here is where we return to the question of the OP, and I am still wondering.

We KNOW that, likely over hundreds of years of practice and display, that the prayer and symbols is a de facto mandate from the people to continue the practice and display, no harm, no foul. It's origins shrouded in tradition, we can't be sure if such practice and display was - at one time - some sort of plank, or even if it came up for discussion during the Quiet Revolution.

Whether municipalities should have a prayer or display of religious symbols is one issue, and really I am neither here nor there on the issue. I don't really care either way.

To me the larger issue of special interest groups driving change in this way is problematic. I mean, I have nothing against change so long as the target population has a right to - or a right to speak to - determining their own wishes. It seems to me that the people of Saugenay are being treated like they are collectively stupid or unimportant in the decision making process.

[Molly]

I'd disagree since you modified the word 'outcry' with the word 'public' thus changing the signification of the actual concept.

Then take it back out. Objection is objection, and I see no signifigance to the nuance. Citizens object. Not just one citizen, but citizens.