Link to the page that features the 14 articles that have been contributed to HuffPost Canada before it shut down & ceased operations!
Article by Samer Majzoub,
The word “religion” in the context of the Western contemporary societies that originated in Europe is more of a theological doctrine, while in some societies originating in other part of the world, it reflects cultural identity, rituals, conviction and social habits….
By Samer Majzoub:
Recently, the Quebec provincial government tabled two long-awaited bills to the National Assembly.
Bill 62, on religious neutrality, proposes a number of measures that must be taken into account when considering whether to grant an accommodation on religious grounds and, provides that public services must be both delivered and received by persons with their faces uncovered.
Bill 59, proposes the prohibition of hate speech and speech inciting violence that is engaged in or disseminated publicly that targets people sharing a common characteristic identified as prohibited grounds for discrimination in the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms.
The Liberal provincial government has aimed to address very controversial subjects that have been dominating Quebec politics for some time, including reasonable accommodation, youth “radicalization,” and increasing incidents of hate speech. Both bills, 62 and 59, include vast measures and action plans. Topics covered in the two bills are so numerous that it appears as if PLQ, the governing Liberals, are aiming to tackle all divisive issues within Quebec society.
In the last few months, about two dozen Quebec youth have been reported to have left or attempted to leave to war zones in the Middle East. Those reports have raised concerns of what has been called radicalization of youth Quebecers. Calls to deal with the subject have dominated official statements and airwaves. While the general reaction to the anti-radicalisation measures proposed by the government has been positive to a large extent, serious concerns have been raised on how the plan will be implemented.
Taking into consideration not to mix between religiously practicing individuals and signs of radicalization is one of the main challenges that will face the civil servants who will be at the forefront of implementing the anti-radicalization action plan. This will require extensive training and knowledge for all the employees involved in the action plan. The employees should not be treating such sensitive cases based on their personal judgment which may lead to failure of the entire intervention action plan.
Another point of concern in the proposed bills is the mandate given to the police to detect signs of radicalization. A question that will arise include, what defines the physical signs of an individual’s radicalization, is it his or her appearance or dress? How do you detect on the street that an individual carries signs of extremism? A major fear is falling into religious profiling. Our societies already suffer from racial profiling; certainly, no one would like to add another hardship to our Quebec communities by poor implementation of such a security mandate.
Hate speech has plagued many aspects of Quebec society for long periods of time. This toxic phenomenon has witnessed a surge recently. One of its worst times came within the period of the previous Parti Quebecois government with the proposed Quebec secular charter. Quebec society witnessed a very dangerous trend of continues smear campaigns against cultural, ethnic and religious groups. Moreover, concerns of extreme speech that may incite violence came as an additional reason for the need to have clear anti-hate speech laws. Such a measure would fight all sorts of discriminatory discourse, such as Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and racial talk. It’s hoped that such an act, if it’s fairly implemented, will heal division, reunite and create harmony within Quebec’s social fabric.
The Quebec Liberal party has been blamed by some for not addressing what has been known as neutrality of the state or the secular charter. Whatever name is given, the concept came down to the prohibition of women from receiving or offering public services while their faces are covered. Depriving Quebec women from public services such as health and education because of their face cover is considered very discriminatory against women’s basic right of being treated as human beings and not discriminated against because of their choice of dress code. Such a provision is a blow to Quebec’s claim to be a pioneer on women’s rights.
Although there are no official statistics, the number of the face covered Quebec women, many of whom are French Quebecer converts, does not exceed a handful. Does this very small number of women, none of whom work in public service, deserve to be put in the spotlight? Is it worth to have the government tabling special laws against their choice of dress code?
Furthermore, the fact that the Provincial government tabled both Bills 59 and 62 at the same time, although, with totally different subjects and topics, has given the impression that the move is targeting one Quebec community — Muslims in particular. Although officials try to deny that they are targeting any group or religion, the way both bills are presented, debated and covered in the media leaves no doubt in the minds and hearts of many Muslim Quebecers that here they are, again, being used as a political football within the province’s political arena.
No one argues for the great need to have bills, laws and social action plans to address important issues of Quebec society such as hate speech, discrimination, extremism, and neutrality of the state. However, it’s not fair to target one group or the other. Although the Muslim community at large doesn’t believe that the provincial government meant to target their population in the province, the government should be working very hard to avoid giving the perception that those bills are targeting Quebec Muslims.
The opportunity and the possibility are still there for officials to remove the impression that such proposed bills are targeting one community by carefully working and avoiding religious profiling in the process of implementing the relevant action plans.
Samer Majzoub, Recipient of Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal ; President of Human right’s advocacy group ; Recipient of many recognition awards.
Since the establishment of the confederation in 1867, both the “Conservatives” and the “Liberals” have exchanged posts continuously until our modern days as the Federal ruling parties in Ottawa, our nation’s capital. The Two political parties have dominated politics in Canada: the Liberal Party and the historic Conservative party (known as the Progressive Conservative Party from 1943 to 2003). If the modern Conservative Party is considered as the successor to the historic one, then these are the only two parties to have formed a government. Canadians throughout the years have been convinced that they have only one choice to choose between either of these two “traditional political parties” .This particular “doctrine” has ruled out any opportunity for other political parties the chance of ruling the state in any way.
The mere fact that Federal policy has been mainly subject to the sway of either the Liberals or the Conservatives has not stopped from forming “hopefuls political parties” that have been promoting themselves as the alternative choice for Canadian voters. One can say that throughout most of history’s elections, these “hopefuls political parties” have played very minimal role at the ballots when it comes to the decision-making day. Election campaign after the other, these parties assumed maximum efforts to convince the electorates that they can select an alternative political group to rule the nation with different social and economical platforms and directions. However, time after time, Canadians stuck to the tradition of choosing one of the two dominant political orientations, Liberals or Conservatives.
The rule of the game stayed for decades without any change, turning roles, one time Liberals form the government and Conservatives act as the official opposition, or vice versa! Until, the Federal election of 2011, the year the NDP made history by gaining 102 seats at Parliament Hill and occupied the post of the official opposition for the first time since it was born in 1961 and Tommy Douglas, Premier of Saskatchewan at that time, was elected its first leader. The real change in the political scene was not limited to the NDP’s major win only, but, in addition to that, the reality that one of the “traditional Parties”, the Liberal Party of Canada back warded as second opposition role on the floor for the first time in its history too. It should be noted that the Party’s establishment was on July 1st 1867 similar to the date of birth of the Canadian Confederation.
The NDP success waves in 2011 led to another deep upheaval in Quebec’s political map. With the NDP winning 56 seats in Quebec, they nearly wiped out the Bloc Québécois from the political scene. The Bloc Québécois is a federal political party that considers itself as the protector of Quebec‘s interests in the House of Commons of Canada, and the promoter of the Province’s sovereignty. Despite the total contradiction in the main political concepts between the two parties, the NDP as Federalists, and the Bloc Québécois as sovereignists, the Orange Party was able to break the odds in Quebec in addition to its achievement at the Federal level.
Another strong sign that Canadians could be ready to do the change in their choices of who may represent them as their elected officials came from Alberta on May 5 2015. Albertans casted their ballots with a complete mind shift, from the conservative-based political power to a social democratic one. The fact that Albertans kept choosing conservative economical platforms for 44 years, and in one night rebelled over their tradition came as big surprise to all Canadians. Alberta’s NDP win is a major upset, considering the PC party had won 12 consecutive majorities and the NDP held only four seats when the election was called on April 7. In this election, the PC in Alberta was not even able to hold on the official opposition status that was taken by The Wildrose, provincial political party in Alberta. The party was formed out of the Alberta Alliance Party in early 2008 following its merger with the unregistered Wildrose Party of Alberta.
Canadian voters may have shown, in recent years, at both the federal and the provincial levels, eagerness for a change in their options and choices to choose alternatives political platforms to administer their governments. Competition amongst a wide range of contenders for office from different political backgrounds to satisfy and to respond to their constituencies’ best interest is certainly a healthy element for all societies. At no time should any political party take for granted that it will be elected to public office irrespective of its performance and its efficiency. Canadian’s share of democracy, values and freedom of choice deserves first-class trustworthy politicians who are characterised with dignity, dedication, and commitment.
Samer Majzoub is president of the Canadian Muslim Forum (FMC-CMF)