Accommodement raisonnable

[August1991]

Canada, like it or not, is a country that works in two languages. Canadians are largely unilingual, but Canada has many people who don't speak the same language. As Stephen Harper has accurately said, we are a country of two languages but we are not a bilingual country.

For better or worst, I think the expression accommodement raisonnable may become part of our common speech: like glasnost, perestroika, savoir faire, nation, distinct or specificity.

So what is "accommodement raisonnable":

The duty to accommodate requires the State and private persons or corporations to alter standards, practices and policies that are legitimate and applied equally to everyone, in order to adapt them to the specific needs of certain groups, in particular ethnic and religious minorities.

Link

You can try this Google Search.

Then there's Hérouxville:

Le controversé code vie à l'intention des immigrants adopté récemment par Hérouxville, en Mauricie, inspire d'autres municipalités du Québec.

What Premier Jean Charest continued to call the "isolated case" of Herouxville and its rules for immigrants appeared to be spreading in scope and notoriety yesterday.

At least five neighbouring municipalities said that they are looking into adopting similar codes.

Andre Drouin, the Herouxville councillor who wrote the regulations passed by the town council on Jan. 25, was too busy doing interviews with the BBC of London and other international news outlets to speak to "local media."

Montreal Gazette

----

We have had many debates about these questions on this forum. I am starting this thread because I'm curious to know how far we in the West should go in compromising with superstition and backward thinking?

How tolerant should we be of intolerance?

----

I chose to get involved with Maple Leaf Forum in part because I wanted to know - freely - what English Canadians (Western Canadians) thought about political/social issues. Too many opinions are filtered through the modern equivalent of the Christian Catholic Church: left wing politically correct orthodoxy.

The Internet is a place of free expression. Rather than stifle stupidity, we should confront it. Rather than imagine an ideal world (as John Lennon would say), let's confront real problems in the real world.

As John Lennon didn't say, maybe I'm wrong.

[Remiel]

I'd like to comment on the relationship between the imaginary and real world, but that would create too much thread drift right off of the bat.

However, I'm not quite sure I get the point of the cause of the debate: A set of rules that state a whole bunch of things that can be found in the actual laws of the land. I haven't of any stories of Muslims stoning Muslims in public for religious " crimes " in Canada, so why do they feel the need to put that in their little statement?

Even their statement that they believe men and women are of equal value is of debatable truth in our theoretically " enlighteneed " society. Not that we don't want it to be true, but in practice...

I suppose if you were to find an analogy, whereas assimilation might be decribed as the melting pot, we need to find the right blueprint for a finished product. Take the computer for instance. Copper, silicon, iron, plastic, electricity, magenetism. They all have different properies, and react differently, but put them together in the right combination and you have a powerful tool. This debate on reasonable accomodation is really just a debate on refining the blueprint.

End rambling.

[RB]

Well, we do have clear and written laws.

For example if a person or group (e.g. religious falls under Creed) make a prima facie case of "discrimination" under a grounds in the Human Rights Code the onus shifts to someone else (employer, government) to present evidence why they cannot accommodate a person. It is tricky because usually it necessitates duty to accommodate with sufficient diligence.

Language in not listed in the Human Rights Code - so it is interesting that you point it out as a starting point for discrimination. Say if a majority of jobs require fluency in English, in Toronto majority of the people speak some other language, and they don't get hired. We are astonish that an engineer is driving a taxi, and blame the system for not utilizing talented resources.

I mean I won't would head off to Quebec in a culture of French language and expect to head up some company. I don't speak the language. Should I be accommodated?

I do pretty good to head up companies that need English-speaking folks, so now I think someone owes me my "right" to operate in the same capacity elsewhere.

[Charles Anthony]

I'm curious to know how far we in the West should go in compromising with superstition and backward thinking?

How tolerant should we be of intolerance?

We should not care.

There is nothing in these Whoville laws that can not be handled by already existing criminal and civil code. In my estimation, the only reason for spelling them out as the Whos chose to do is for the purposes of gleefully manifesting their racism.

[jbg]

I'd like to comment on the relationship between the imaginary and real world, but that would create too much thread drift right off of the bat.

However, I'm not quite sure I get the point of the cause of the debate: A set of rules that state a whole bunch of things that can be found in the actual laws of the land. I haven't of any stories of Muslims stoning Muslims in public for religious " crimes " in Canada, so why do they feel the need to put that in their little statement?

ON came d@mn close to legitimizing Sharia. I don't think such clarifications of Western democratic practice are out of line.

[Black Dog]

ON came d@mn close to legitimizing Sharia.

Not that close. Thankfully, both sharia and other religious trubunals were shitcanned.

I don't think such clarifications of Western democratic practice are out of line.

They are what CA says they are: gleeful manifestations of racism.

[seabee]

One thing that I have not seen reported in English-Canada:

In the midst of the Hérouxville debate, an Iman from Montréal, accompanied by a Muslim women wearing a head scarf (but not covering her face) went to Hérouxville. They went to the grocery store, the Caisse Populaire, the post office, the local restaurant. Every where was the same; polite, warm and friendly reception. Not a single offensive word whatever. The worst "incident" was a rather spirited conversation with a restaurateur who had trouble believing that Muslims don't stone women in the first place, but no insult, no offensive word or action; it ended rapidly and turned into a very friendly conversation.

Back in Montréal, the Iman was interviewed by the TVA network. Not only did he have nothing to reproach to Hérouxville and its residents, he rather condemned others who view Hérouxville as racist.

Tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance. This how the Hérouxville resolution could be summed up. But it seems that goes against the grain of some anglo-canadians.

[Charles Anthony]

Tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance. This how the Hérouxville resolution could be summed up. But it seems that goes against the grain of some anglo-canadians.

Really?

Some of the people in Whoville want to forbid islamic women from covering their face. Does that sound tolerant to you???

[seabee]

Tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance. This how the Hérouxville resolution could be summed up. But it seems that goes against the grain of some anglo-canadians.

Really?

Some of the people in Whoville want to forbid islamic women from covering their face. Does that sound tolerant to you???

The federal criminal code prohibits being masked and remaining masked if asked to remove the mask by a government official or policeman or police women.

Is that tolerance to you?

[Charles Anthony]

As a point of order, there is no need to repeat my entire post in your quote. Your reply directly follows my post.

The federal criminal code prohibits being masked and remaining masked if asked to remove the mask by a government official or policeman or police women.

Thank you. You proved my point. There is no need for these Whoville laws -- except to express racism.

Is that tolerance to you?

No, it is not. It is submission to the State.

[seabee]

Submission to the state is exactly what the people of Hérouxville want; religious practices come second.

Try walking into a bank with your face covered, and see what happens. You will soon find yourself with "racist" policemen who won't give a darn for your religious principles, whatever they may or may not be.

Will you suggest next that Moslem men be allowed to execute their wives? or throw acid on them, or burn them alive? You should, if you don't want to pass for a "Whoville" hick...

[Black Dog]

Submission to the state is exactly what the people of Hérouxville want; religious practices come second.

Try walking into a bank with your face covered, and see what happens. You will soon find yourself with "racist" policemen who won't give a darn for your religious principles, whatever they may or may not be.

Since you seem to be missing CA's point, allow me to step in: as you've already admitted, many of the practices covered in the Whoville (thanks, Charles) code of conduct are covered in actual legislation such as the Criminal Code, which raise sthe question: why is the code necessary if its ends are already addressed? What point are they trying to make? The fact that Hérouxville (pop. 130) is not exactly a immigrant hotspot lends credence to the theory that this is racialist grandstanding.

Will you suggest next that Moslem men be allowed to execute their wives? or throw acid on them, or burn them alive? You should, if you don't want to pass for a "Whoville" hick...

False dilemna.

[seabee]

Many Canadians know little of their own criminal laws, provincial laws or town regulations. This is, understandably, even more so among newcomers. Knowing they frequently come from countries, regions or cultures where their laws and customs are quite different, it is only fair to inform them how our legislations or customs differ from theirs, if only to prevent them from getting needlessly in trouble with the authorites.

No one, even in Hérouxville, will disagree that the document was very clumsily written. But in Montréal, whence the newspaper and TV stations are located, there has been numerous conflicts arising from various groups or people who have immigrated here and want dispensation from our laws and customs, sometimes resulting in litigious court cases that the media have amplified. It is quite understandable that people in regions that have few or no immigrants don't want to have these troubles happen to them.

In fact, it seems that a very vast majority of people in Québec want a public debate to find how far reasonnable accomodation. That is not to say that they want no such accomodations; in fact, many have been made without any problem and are now part of daily live. But some are overboard, like these kindergartens where no pork product is going to be part of their meals, in case that it might offend someone, even though they are yet to receive a complaint. Is it fair that all kids be forbidden to have a ham sandwich on the basis that it might eventually offend someone? However, everybody agrees that they should offer choice of foods to respect not only other's religious conviction but simply personnal taste. At the same time, an ambulance was rudely evicted from a hospital because he had brought his non-kosher meal into the cafeteria; this was at the Jewish Montreal Hospital. Fortunately, a judge considered that accomodation goes in both directions and has condemned the hospital to a $10,000 fine; nobody would have protested if the hospital has simply asked to eat in another room. Multiculturalism is a sociological phenomenon that has a lot of very valuable aspects and can definitely help broaden the mind. But not at the cost of imposing on the hosts its own values as the only true values.

[Black Dog]

Many Canadians know little of their own criminal laws, provincial laws or town regulations.

Most Canadians and, I'd wager, most new arrivals know that stoning and throwing acid on people's faces are no-nos.

No one, even in Hérouxville, will disagree that the document was very clumsily written. But in Montréal, whence the newspaper and TV stations are located, there has been numerous conflicts arising from various groups or people who have immigrated here and want dispensation from our laws and customs, sometimes resulting in litigious court cases that the media have amplified. It is quite understandable that people in regions that have few or no immigrants don't want to have these troubles happen to them.

I'm sure there's little danger of that, especially ow that Hérouxville is known for the belief that all immigrants are stone age savages.

[blueblood]

Well it is the people of Hérouxville's town. It is their community and they can do what they see fit to it. We also have the right to say that's not cool. If they are putting up those regulations then let them be damned. There's lots of places in Canada that aren't like this. If they don't want certain people in their community they shouldn't be forced to accept them.

[geoffrey]

Since you seem to be missing CA's point, allow me to step in: as you've already admitted, many of the practices covered in the Whoville (thanks, Charles) code of conduct are covered in actual legislation such as the Criminal Code, which raise sthe question: why is the code necessary if its ends are already addressed? What point are they trying to make? The fact that Hérouxville (pop. 130) is not exactly a immigrant hotspot lends credence to the theory that this is racialist grandstanding.

I am 50% in agreement with you here BD, but also a little concerned with your argument.

It's quite clear to me that Whoville is concerned with people violating the criminal code, and they are quite upset that the police won't enforce the law. So really, it isn't achieving the same ends. The CC isn't being enforced, this may be enforcable.

When's the last time you've seen a Muslim woman asked to remove the face covering when entering a bank or a court house? Doesn't happen. But it should. And the refusal should land you with at the very least a fine.

[Black Dog]

It's quite clear to me that Whoville is concerned with people violating the criminal code, and they are quite upset that the police won't enforce the law. So really, it isn't achieving the same ends. The CC isn't being enforced, this may be enforcable.

I think you're reading too much into the people of Whoville's actions. First, I doubt the town has any experience with a lack of enforcement, since it doesn't seemt to have any immigrants. Second: when wa sthe last time someone was stoned (with rocks, I mean) and the cops did not act?

[August1991]

I suppose if you were to find an analogy, whereas assimilation might be decribed as the melting pot, we need to find the right blueprint for a finished product.

There is no finished product. God knows what society will be.

Well, we do have clear and written laws.

For example if a person or group (e.g. religious falls under Creed) make a prima facie case of "discrimination" under a grounds in the Human Rights Code the onus shifts to someone else (employer, government) to present evidence why they cannot accommodate a person. It is tricky because usually it necessitates duty to accommodate with sufficient diligence.

RB, your post is terrifying. You seem to think that we can resolve this problem by reference to words and arguments about their definition.

One thing that I have not seen reported in English-Canada: In the midst of the Hérouxville debate, an Iman from Montréal, accompanied by a Muslim women wearing a head scarf (but not covering her face) went to Hérouxville. They went to the grocery store, the Caisse Populaire, the post office, the local restaurant. Every where was the same; polite, warm and friendly reception. Not a single offensive word whatever.

This simply shows that ordinary Quebecers are good hosts. Young Quebec women in short sleeved shirts would be similarly received in a small town in Jordan or Egypt.

The example is irrelevant. What would happen if such young women moved permanently to Jordan? Or to Herouxville? More exactly, what would happen if they tried to walk in a street of Riyadh?

This kind of occidental fairness (sauce for the gander/goose) truly misses the point. In life, there is no fairness. Il faut choisir.

...many of the practices covered in the Whoville (thanks, Charles) code of conduct are covered in actual legislation such as the Criminal Code, which raise sthe question: why is the code necessary if its ends are already addressed? What point are they trying to make? The fact that Hérouxville (pop. 130) is not exactly a immigrant hotspot lends credence to the theory that this is racialist grandstanding.

This strikes me as the essential political/legal argument in Canada.

We have a federal Charter of Rights that ensures an individual's absolute protection against the tyranny of the majority - or the tyranny of a local council. If two gays want to marry in Herouxville or if two Muslims want to genuflect in Herouxville, there's nothing the local council can do to stop them.

----

There's a subtext that I have not seen posted in this thread, or elsewhere. Quebecers, at least outside of Montreal, have an identity; they have a language and an accent. They know each other and readily understand one another. They are open to outsiders (many have Irish family names) but they believe what they have is worth preserving for the future.

Preserve? Quite apart from language, for several centuries now, Quebec is a society of remarkable civility. What Quebecer would not want to ensure such a society into the future?

The MultiCulti Western Left have fallen victim to the claim of special status. Quebecers know that to survive there is no special status.

[Adelle]

They could avoid the whole issue and make it even simpler:

"Women are not to be discriminated against or abused. They are equal to men in all things."

That covers everything in a nut shell. Of course, trying to live up to that could cause other problems, I suppose.

Adelle

[geoffrey]

They could avoid the whole issue and make it even simpler:

"Women are not to be discriminated against or abused. They are equal to men in all things."

I think that's the status quo.

[Adelle]

I think that's the status quo.

Ya, but I wonder what would happen if a couple of the quys and I tried to walk down main street on a hot summer day with our shirts off? How equal would I be then?

Adelle

[geoffrey]

Ya, but I wonder what would happen if a couple of the quys and I tried to walk down main street on a hot summer day with our shirts off? How equal would I be then?

Adelle

Fair enough. I can't find any reasonable moral argument against that.

Society would need to set some standards though, for both sexes equally. There are just some people that shouldn't be around with their tops off for everyone's benefit.

Or perhaps we should just keep everyone with their shirts on... think of how it would reduce skin cancer rates.

[Adelle]

Fair enough. I can't find any reasonable moral argument against that.

Society would need to set some standards though, for both sexes equally. There are just some people that shouldn't be around with their tops off for everyone's benefit.

Or perhaps we should just keep everyone with their shirts on... think of how it would reduce skin cancer rates.

Wonder what the response would be if men were told they couldn't go topless, something they have been able to do since the '30's, so that women couldn't go topless. Good point on the sun thing, though. Being fair skinned (whitey, white girl) direct sunlight and I are not best of friends. In the summer I often wear egyptian linen (gauss) so I am both cool and protected. Of course, I also don't wear anything underneath (Oh my God, she's naked under her clothes!) so if the wind is right or the thing gets wet I could be considered top free. As for the "some people shouldn't have their tops off" I assume it is because they are unfit or otherwise unattractive and has nothing to do with equality or legality. Some people shouldn't wear Speedo's either (ok, most people) but it is a matter of personal opinion, not arrest.

Adelle

[Remiel]

If you're really that desperate to go around without your top on during the summer, just move to Ontario. Completely legal, and almost never practiced.

[Adelle]

If you're really that desperate to go around without your top on during the summer, just move to Ontario. Completely legal, and almost never practiced.

What an odd choice of words. They would seem to indicate a certain amount of negative reaction. It isn't really an issue of being "that desperate" or that I can go topfree in Ontario, or New York or Europe. Yes, topfreedom is legal in many places but "almost never practiced". The important thing is that women, like men, are free to make the choice of themselves, not have the choice forced upon them. We are really discussing how equal is equal, in all of Canada generally but in this little town in Quebec in particular.

Adelle