Quebec Pupil Wears Headphones to Avoid Hearing Music

[August1991]

pretty much agree. I think the admin still made a good call, not kick them out but warn them for next year.

The article in the OP makes it plain that this school has many immigrants and this policy is a way to integrate them, as you say, into Grade 1.

What bothers me is that this is apparently a more frequent request. What parents immigrate to Quebec and then ask that their children never hear music?

----

BTW, I lived for a short while in Saudi Arabia. In the Kingdom of the Two Holy Cities, there are no cinemas, no musical concerts, no symphony orchestras. There are no bar bands. Low alcohol (0.5%) beer? There is zero alcohol Heineken.

There is KFC but like all restaurants, there is a single male section, and a "family" section. IMV, places like Saudi Arabia and Iran have abolished fun and they are very similar to the Soviet Union or other Leftist "utopia". (If you're a Leftist and object to my comparison, read this: The Joke.)

----

Fer gawdsakes, music. I had a Methodist grandfather who wouldn't play cards on Sunday but at least he would sing hymns.

Edited December 22, 2011 by August1991

[Guest Manny]

I should try that. I'm the worst when it comes to trolls.

May I say, I appreciate your efforts in pointing out the bigotry of others around here. It makes my life easier...

[TimG]

I'm not even going to humour this with a response.

Because you are troll that who thinks he can call people racist whenever they have an opinion that disagrees with you?

[August1991]

This is a funny POV. The suggestion was made to go back to where they're from. If they hold a Canadian citizenship, then there is no going back to anywhere. Their from here. That was my point. You can define Canadian conceptually any way that you would like, but the State most certainly does determine legally what your citizenship is.

Funny POV?

There is dual citizenship of course, and people can go back to where they were born - or their other citizenship.

---

I'm more surprised that you equate "Canadian" with State-determined "Canadian citizenship".

Cybercoma, do you really believe that "Canada" is now simply a piece of bureaucratic paper?

Edited December 22, 2011 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Because you are troll that who thinks he can call people racist whenever they have an opinion that disagrees with you?

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me and everything to do with your argument that someone is not Canadian if they're part of a particular ethnicity or religion. That is pure unbridled bigotry. And someone that makes those kinds of arguments and thinks in those terms is a bigot, plain and simple. There are many posters on this forum that I don't agree with that haven't appeared to be bigots.

[cybercoma]

Funny POV?

There is dual citizenship of course, and people can go back to where they were born - or their other citizenship.

---

I'm more surprised that you equate "Canadian" with State-determined "Canadian citizenship".

Cybercoma, do you really believe that "Canada" is now simply a piece of bureaucratic paper?

I believe to be a Canadian citizen (iow, to be a Canadian) that you have to have Canadian citizenship, yeah. Dual citizenship is irrelevant.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That there is some grander ideal of "Canadianism" that someone can fit into? While I may agree with that sentiment, it still doesn't make a person a Canadian in the legal sense, when certain people demand they go back to where they came from.

---

Those hyphens always throw me off when I'm reading your posts.

Edited December 22, 2011 by cybercoma

[August1991]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That there is some grander ideal of "Canadianism" that someone can fit into?

That's precisely the point that I am making.

Cybercoma, as Obama would say, let's call this a "teaching moment".

----

Now then (sorry for the hyphens), what is this "Canadianism"? Is it a grander ideal? To me, we Canadians more or less decide it on our own, in our own way.

(BTW, I'm not a nationalist... )

Edited December 22, 2011 by August1991

[jbg]

Quebec's minister of education has gotten involved and claims that this policy does not compromise "Quebec's educational programme".

It most certainly does. If this student's parents don't want the student to hear music, they are free to relocate to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

[cybercoma]

That's precisely the point that I am making.

Cybercoma, as Obama would say, let's call this a "teaching moment".

----

Now then (sorry for the hyphens), what is this "Canadianism"? Is it a grander ideal? To me, we Canadians more or less decide it on our own, in our own way.

(BTW, I'm not a nationalist... )

What you're talking about is a philosophical question that has nothing to do with the legal definition of Canadian. We can discuss the former, but it has no bearing on the latter. Can we agree that they are different things? It's like politicians that throw around "nation" when discussing Quebec. It can mean two different things either a) a geopolitical unit (ie, Canada, US, UK, France, etc.), or tribal, ethnic, or cultural affiliation (ie, the First Nations, Québécois, the Zulu, etc.). In the same way you're asking what it means to be Canadian, while I'm talking about Canadian in the legal sense (in the sense that you don't deport citizens... let's not open the Acadian can of worms either).

For the record, I'm not sure why you would think I believed that you were a Nationalist. I never gave it any thought, to be honest.

Edited December 22, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

It most certainly does. If this student's parents don't want the student to hear music, they are free to relocate to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

I'm going to assume that you are assuming they are not Canadian citizens because they're Muslim, which is why you're saying they should relocate to another country. Perhaps you don't assume that and you think they should just leave the country to preserve their religious identity. I would ask you then, if anyone who challenges the laws of Canada under the Constitution at the Supreme Court should leave the country?

Moreover, do you hold the same standards for other types of religious accommodation in our country? I mean, I didn't see you arguing that Jewish Montrealers should go to Israel if they want quiet on Rosh Hashanah. That case is arguably worse because they actually legislated their religious observance.

Edited December 22, 2011 by cybercoma

[August1991]

What you're talking about is a philosophical question that has nothing to do with the legal definition of Canadian. We can discuss the former, but it has no bearing on the latter. Can we agree that they are different things?

Different things? I'm happy that you recognize the difference.

IMV, the "philosophical question" (as you put it) is the key point.

It's like politicians that throw around "nation" when discussing Quebec. It can mean two different things either a) a geopolitical unit (ie, Canada, US, UK, France, etc.), or tribal, ethnic, or cultural affiliation (ie, the First Nations, Québécois, the Zulu, etc.). In the same way you're asking what it means to be Canadian, while I'm talking about Canadian in the legal sense (in the sense that you don't deport citizens... let's not open the Acadian can of worms either).

So, for you, "Canada" is either 1) "geopolitical" or 2) "tribal"?

That's it? No third possibility?

That's the teaching moment. At least Cybercoma, you are beginning to imagine a country other than State-defined.

As Ronald Reagan said, referring to the US, "We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around."

----

This place called "Canada" (and "Canadians"), over the past few centuries, have survived various State regimes and governments. I reckon that we will continue to do so. We Canadians are a civilized lot.

Edited December 22, 2011 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Different things? I'm happy that you recognize the difference.

IMV, the "philosophical question" (as you put it) is the key point.

So, for you, "Canada" is either 1) "geopolitical" or 2) "tribal"?

That's it? No third possibility?

That's the teaching moment. At least you are beginning to imagine a country other than State-defined.

As Ronald Reagan said, referring to the US, "We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around."

----

This place called "Canada" (and the people here) have survived various governments and State regimes. I reckon that we will continue to do so.

The problem is that it's nearly impossible to define the Canadian "nation" beyond the geopolitical one. That is what has vexed our federal government since the Quiet Revolution. Pearson had a Canadian flag created, O Canada became the "national" anthem in 1980 (although it had been around since the 40s, I believe), Dominion Day was changed to Canada Day in 1982, and Chretien's Liberals tried to ram it all down Quebec's throat. Our governments have worked very hard at creating a state "culture" that is meant to include and unite many disparate cultures. If we Canada exists as a cultural nation, then we are a cultural nation of cultural nations. Some commenters have argued that you can't be a culture of cultures, because then you don't actually have any culture yourself. Sounds like an idea for the name of a book: Canada: The Nation of Nations. Maybe we can get Andrew Cohen on board.

[August1991]

I have now found English language reports:

A question about reasonable accomodation has arisen at a school in the St. Michel district. It is allowing one kindergarten student to wear noise-cancelling headphones whenever there is any singing or music in class. Her Muslim parents say listening to music is against their faith.

The prinicpal says the parents have already been warned that this arrangement is for kindergarten only and the headphones will have to go at the end of the school year.

CJAD

Here's another:

A kindergarten student in Saint-Michel will be allowed to wear a noise-reducing headset in class, because her parents' say their religious beliefs don't allow the five-year-old girl to listen to music.

CTV Edited December 22, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

The problem is that it's nearly impossible to define the Canadian "nation" beyond the geopolitical one....

That's a sad statement of your beliefs, and what you think of your country.

That is what has vexed our federal government since the Quiet Revolution. Pearson had a Canadian flag created, O Canada became the "national" anthem in 1980 (although it had been around since the 40s, I believe), Dominion Day was changed to Canada Day in 1982, and Chretien's Liberals tried to ram it all down Quebec's throat. Our governments have worked very hard at creating a state "culture" that is meant to include and unite many disparate cultures. If we Canada exists as a cultural nation, then we are a cultural nation of cultural nations. Some commenters have argued that you can't be a culture of cultures, because then you don't actually have any culture yourself. Sounds like an idea for the name of a book: Canada: The Nation of Nations. Maybe we can get Andrew Cohen on board.

Culture? Flag? Dominion Day?

According to you, that's Canada? For me, Canada is much broader. IME, Canadians are a diverse lot of people and Canada is a remarkable, civilized place on this planet - we Canadians share some core values, as you Leftists would say.

But as I say, I'm not a nationalist.

-----

Let's go back to the OP and parents forbidding a public school teacher to allow a five-year old girl to hear music.

To me, the parents are not Canadian - whatever their passport.

Edited December 22, 2011 by August1991

[cybercoma]

That's a sad statement of your beliefs, and what you think of your country.

Why is that sad? You're the one that says Canada is more than a political unit that it means something else beyond that to be Canadian. However, there are many various nations within that set of "core values" that you say exist. More on those in a second.

Culture? Flag? Dominion Day?

According to you, that's Canada?

No. According to the government those are the symbols of what Canada is and they want everyone to identify with those symbols, so they identify themselves as Canadian.... especially Quebec.

For me, Canada is much broader. IME, Canadians are a diverse lot of people and Canada is a remarkable, civilized place on this planet - we Canadians share some core values, as you Leftists would say.

"You Leftists"? Is that how this conversation is going to go down?

Regardless, diversity is the first thing you mention as one of the core values we have. What other core values would you say we have?

As far as diversity goes, that's something relatively new. It was Trudeau that promoted a multicultural Canada. If we go back not all that much further to the 1950s and before, Canada most certainly was not as open and multicultural as we conceive of ourselves today. In fact, the popular opinion can be summed up by JS Woodsworth book from 1909 Strangers Within Our Gates. Indeed, he was calling "foreigners" (people that were actually attracted to Canada to settle the land) strangers. Then you have all the other countless examples of our xenophobic past, such as the Chinese Head Tax, the Komagata Maru, and the Jewish Refugees from the St. Louis.

So your conception of diversity as a distinct core value of Canadianism is actually a politically constructed value and while it may be true, it's not something that is distinctly Canadian that would set us apart from other Western nations like the United Kingdom or the United States. That is not a quality that can define the Canadian nation in and of itself.

Let's go back to the OP and parents forbidding a public school teacher to allow a five-year old girl to hear music.

To me, the parents are not Canadian - whatever their passport.

And why not? Because they wish the freedom to raise their child within their faith? What's unCanadian about that?

Since you are not talking about citizenship, you're going to need to define Canadian then, so I can understand what benchmark you're holding this family to. I need to know what being "Canadian" means to you. I'm especially thrown off because you say it means diversity, then you say their unique situation is unCanada, yet it's diverse. I'm willing to humour your point that there is a philosophical being of Canadianness, but if you're going to have a personal definition, you're going to need to define it.

[sharkman]

It most certainly does. If this student's parents don't want the student to hear music, they are free to relocate to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

The length to which some are willing to go in fear of appearing PC or racist is disheartening. Canadians can not expect our government to bow to every request for special treatment. This places them above the rest of us. Either we are equal or we are not. You want to come to Canada? Sure, but remember, it's not the same as your homeland, it's Canada.

[cybercoma]

Canadians can not expect our government to bow to every request for special treatment.

That's fine as long as you're ready to accept that you cannot expect the government to deny every request.

Reality will fall somewhere in the middle, as dictated by... here it is again... reasonable accommodation.

[olp1fan]

You can call me a bigot or racist until your fingers fall off it is not going to change anything

Edited December 22, 2011 by olp1fan

[olp1fan]

stop looking like an ignorant asshat. just because 1 muslim family doesn't want their child to listen to music, it doesn't mean that all muslims like that.

Read my first post dopey, I didn't have a problem with how it was handled

Edited December 22, 2011 by olp1fan

[olp1fan]

Can anyone confirm if 5 year old Muslims listening to music is in violation of their religion?

If so I think most of us agrees that is beyond absurd and has no place in this country

this IS Canada afterall not an Islamic nation

Edited December 22, 2011 by olp1fan

[Charles Anthony]

Stop the personal attacks and insults in the discussion.

Ch. A.

[Michael Hardner]

The length to which some are willing to go in fear of appearing PC or racist is disheartening. Canadians can not expect our government to bow to every request for special treatment. This places them above the rest of us. Either we are equal or we are not. You want to come to Canada? Sure, but remember, it's not the same as your homeland, it's Canada.

You're making a bad assumption here. Fear is not at the heart of accommodation. Canada has had this as a tradition since before its inception.

Our governments don't bow to every request, the consider them and make a decision.

"It's not the same as your homeland, it's Canada"... where some people want to tell you how to dress... if you're Muslim. Is that what we're saying ?

As I said, historically we were built on accommodating minority cultures. Furthermore, the Europe and the America from which we came were composed of many cultures that had to work together. The historical dialogue continues.

[Guest Manny]

Moreover, do you hold the same standards for other types of religious accommodation in our country? I mean, I didn't see you arguing that Jewish Montrealers should go to Israel if they want quiet on Rosh Hashanah. That case is arguably worse because they actually legislated their religious observance.

Well done! It's amazing how some people just so desperately want to find reasons to hate ordinary muslims, the vast majority of whom don't want anything different from what the rest of us want. And here we see an example of pandering to the needs of one specific group. Yet there is nothing overly wrong with this, in my view, if it can be reasonably accommodated.

And with that link, there's really little reason to carry on this thread!

[GostHacked]

Not being allowed to listen to music really seems harsh. I think it's an important part of human development to listen to music. Depending on the music, it really soothes the soul. Also it's a great form of expression.

[Guest American Woman]

At the request of parents of a Muslim kindergarten pupil in Montreal, a public shool now puts headphones over the ears of the child whenever the class plays music. On religious grounds, the parents feel that it is wrong for their child to hear music.

The school's principal has said that it will accommodate the child this year but next year, she will have to listen to the music.

Quebec's minister of education has gotten involved and claims that this policy does not compromise "Quebec's educational programme".

An employee of the school that this request is not exceptional and they are increasingly common. I wonder if this happens elsewhere in Canada.

I remember classmates not being forced to "celebrate" Christmas, birthdays, etc. along with the rest of the classroom if it went against religious beliefs. I don't see why a child should be forced to listen to music. Where is the harm in not listening? It's not as if the parents are objecting to the playing of music, trying to force their beliefs on the school at large.