canang-l Fwd: Charter of values/Charte des valeurs
Linda Maloney
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
----- Original Message -----From: Roslyn MacgregorTo: Clergy ListSent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:14 PMSubject: Fwd: Charter of values/Charte des valeursA beautifully powerfully written response to the Quebec governemtn's current approach (fear of?) diveristy - by the REvd Diane Rollert, Pastor at the Unitarian Church of Montreal.Ros
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rev. Diane Rollert <dianer...@ucmtl.ca>
Date: 2013/8/29
Subject: Charter of values/Charte des valeurs
To: "Rev. Diane Rollert" <dianer...@ucmtl.ca>
My Dear Friends,I am sending you my personal statement regarding the Charte des valeurs québécoises, which I have sent to the English and French press (pasted below and attached). I would very much welcome your feedback. Please feel free to share with others.Voici ma déclaration personnelle concernant la Charte des valeurs québécoises que j'ai envoyée à la presse. J'ai hâte d'entendre votre rétroaction. N’hésitez pas à la partager.Rev. Diane RollertThe English text follows...28 août 2013Montréal
Mon Québec, s’il te plait, ne permets pas que la proposition de Charte des valeurs québécoises te représente!Je suis une immigrante au Québec, et je suis une pasteure. C’est-à-dire que je suis une personne « religieuse ». Il y a sept ans, lorsque je suis arrivée au Québec, je ne parlais que quelques mots de français. C’était tout un défi d’apprendre le français à l’âge de 49 ans, mais il était facile d’apprendre à aimer ce pays. J’adore l’énergie et la diversité de Montréal autant que j’adore les beaux paysages et les gens chaleureux du Nord du Québec, là où je passe plusieurs semaines chaque année en voyageant et vivant en français. Je considère le Québec comme mon chez-moi et il m’est impossible d’imaginer que je puisse habiter ailleurs.
Mes jours, en traversant le Québec et en apprenant à parler le français, ont été une révélation merveilleuse. J’ai connu des gens chaleureux, d’esprit ouvert et curieux. Quelques-uns ont voyagé autour du monde, et quelques-uns demeurent dans des coins isolés de la province où une personne comme moi est vraiment une nouveauté. Souvent, les gens sont particulièrement curieux envers mon métier : une femme qui dirige un culte. « Waow! Les femmes peuvent être prêtres dans votre église? Est-ce que tu célèbres la messe? » me demandent-ils.
Les gens que je rencontre sont très intéressés lorsque j’explique que, oui, les femmes peuvent devenir pasteures dans ma tradition, et que oui, nous avons des célébrations ou offices les dimanches, mais que ceux-ci ne ressemblent pas à la messe catholique. Ils veulent en savoir plus, et nos conversations se prolongent pour de longues heures devant un café ou un souper. Fréquemment, les gens avec qui je parle s’excusent avec politesse (ou parfois ils me taquinent) lorsqu’ils me disent à quel point ils ne sont pas « religieux ». Certains me racontent d’amères histoires de leur passé catholique, mais il y en a plusieurs qui se trouvent à des millénaires de la religion de leurs arrière-grands-parents. Toutefois, lorsque nous discutons, nous trouvons que nous partageons un bon terrain d’entente, des valeurs communes, ainsi qu’un amour profond pour ce pays.
Quand j’utilise le mot « religieux », je fais référence à mon choix personnel de vivre selon certaines valeurs qui m’amènent à évoluer dans une communauté affectueuse. Ces valeurs qui nous animent sont l’amour, la tolérance, la liberté de questionner, un engagement à la paix ainsi qu’à la terre et à la valeur et à la dignité intrinsèques de toute personne. Les croyances individuelles restent une affaire personnelle. Que l’on soit athée ou croyant nous partageons souvent les mêmes valeurs. Je rencontre souvent des gens qui concluent hâtivement que lorsque je parle de « religion », ce que je comprends et ce que je vis ne peuvent pas être différents de leurs propres expériences de la religion. Leurs anciennes expériences les empêchant de découvrir qui je suis vraiment.
Voir la proposition d’essai pour une charte des valeurs québécoises était un crève-cœur pour moi comme immigrante ainsi que comme personne religieuse. Elle me signale que c’est possible que je ne sois pas véritablement la bienvenue dans le pays où j’ai choisi d’avoir ma maison. Elle me dit que les gens « comme moi » ne sont qu’une menace, un message qui est tellement différent de l’accueil chaleureux que j’ai personnellement rencontré ici.
Depuis que je suis ici, j’ai rencontré une diversité incroyable de gens et ma vie a été enrichie par des personnes qui risquent fort d’être très affectées par cette charte. J’ai connu des musulmans, juifs, bouddhistes, autochtones, sikhs, hindous, chrétiens, hommes et femmes qui travaillent fort pour faire toute une différence à Montréal et au Québec. Beaucoup sont actifs dans des programmes sociaux, en aidant les sans-abris, en empêchant l’abus conjugal, ou en améliorant l’environnement. Certains sont des immigrants venus ici pour échapper à des régimes oppressifs, et certains portent fièrement les symboles de leur foi, que ce soit un hijab, une kippa, une croix, une robe jaune-safran, une étoffe cérémoniale, ou un turban.
Ce sont des individus qui prennent des choix personnels, qui n’ont aucune envie de convertir ou même d’obliger les autres à suivre les préceptes de leur foi Ce sont des êtres humains et des citoyens exceptionnels qui amènent tellement du bien à nos communautés. Quelle tristesse quand je pense que ces individus, que je connais et que je respecte, seraient barrés du service public à cause du recul de la simple liberté d’expression qui a été assurée depuis longtemps par notre état. C’est douloureux de penser (selon les sondages récents) qu’une grosse majorité de Québécois auraient peur de ces individus tout simplement à cause de leur apparence.
Je comprends l’histoire dure de la majorité francophone du Québec. Je comprends le désir de fortifier l’identité d’ici. Mais, la puissance culturelle vient de ce qui est célébré et chéri, pas par ce qui est interdit. Ah, comment je voudrais crier au Québec, que vous avez tellement à offrir au monde! Vous possédez de la créativité, de l’ingénuité, de l’humour, de la joie de vivre, de beaux paysages, d’une histoire fascinante (où dans le monde existe une autre « révolution tranquille »?) de la cuisine raffinée, de la musique enchanteresse, et par-dessus tout d’un peuple chaleureux. Tout ça est uniquement à vous. C’est votre caractère qui nous amène ici, nous qui sommes nous autres les immigrants, à vos côtés. Votre valeur vient de ce que vous êtes déjà. Par la législation de la différence, vous confisquez ce qui est noble et accueillant du Québec et vous les remplacez avec la division et la discorde.
Mon cher Québec, s'il te plaît, réaffirme le meilleur de ton identité aussi belle et honorable. Mets-toi debout, et dis au monde que tu n’as pas peur de la diversité; que tu es assez solide pour accueillir la différence; que tu peux engager un dialogue à travers la culture et la religion, que tu es capable d’être enrichi de la présence des autres en restant toujours toi-même. Ne laisse pas cette charte proposée des valeurs québécoises parler pour toi.
Avec amour pour le Québec chez moi,
La Révérende Diane Rollert
Pasteure de l’Église unitarienne de Montréal
*************************28 August 2013MontrealPlease, Quebec, don’t let the proposed Charte des valeurs québécoises speak for you!
I am an immigrant and a religious leader. I arrived here seven years ago speaking hardly a word of French. While learning French at the age of 49 was certainly a challenge, learning to love this province was easy. I have come to love the energy and the diversity of Montreal as well as the beauty and warm-heartedness of northern Quebec where I spend several weeks each year travelling and living in French. I consider Quebec to be my home and I cannot imagine living anywhere else.
My days of travelling through Quebec and learning to speak French have been a wonderful revelation. I have met people who are warm, open-minded and curious. Some have travelled the world, and some live in isolated corners of the province where someone like me is quite a novelty. Often, people are curious about me as female clergyperson. Their only reference is the Catholic Church. “Wow! You can have women who are priests in your church? Do you serve mass?” they ask.
People are intrigued when I explain that, yes, women can be clergy in my tradition, and that, yes, we have celebrations or services on Sundays, but they don’t look like a mass. They want to know more, and our conversations often extend into long hours over coffee or dinner. Frequently, the people I speak with are politely apologetic (and sometimes gently teasing) as they tell me to what extent they are “not religious”. Some tell me angry stories of their Catholic pasts, but many are several generations removed from the religion of their great-grandparents. Still, as our conversations unfold, we find that we do share common ground, common values, and a deep love for this province.
When I use the word “religious” I am referring to my personal choice to live by certain values that bring me together with a loving community. These values are love, tolerance, equality, the freedom to question, a commitment to peace and to the earth, and the inherent worth and dignity of every person. What we believe can be very separate from our values. You can be an atheist or a believer in God and still value many of the same things. I find that people can be too quick to assume that when I speak of “religion” my understanding and experience cannot possibly be different from their own experience of religion. Their past experience closes them off from discovering who I really am.
Seeing the trial proposal for a Charte des valeurs québécoises is heartbreaking for me as an immigrant and as a religious person. It signals to me that I may never be fully welcome in my chosen home. It tells me that people “like me” are something to be feared, a message that is so different from the warmth and welcome I have personally encountered.
In my time here, I have met an incredible diversity of people, and my life has been especially enriched by some of the people who would be most affected by this charter. I have come to know Muslims, Jews, Aboriginals, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and Christians who are working hard to make a difference in the lives of people in Montreal and Quebec. Many of them are active in social justice programs, helping the homeless, preventing domestic violence, or improving the environment. Some are immigrants who have come here to escape oppressive regimes in their homelands, and some proudly wear the symbols of their faith, be it a hijab, a kippa, a cross, a saffron robe, a ceremonial cloth or a turban.
These are individuals making personal choices with no desire to force their religious faith on anyone else. They are outstanding human beings and citizens who bring so much to our communities. How sad it is that these individuals, who I know and respect, could be barred from public service because of the very freedom of expression that has long been guaranteed by this province. How painful it is to think that (according to recent polls) a large majority of people in Quebec would fear these individuals simply because of their appearance.
I understand the hard story of the Francophone majority of Quebec. I understand the desire to strengthen identity here. But cultural strength comes from what is celebrated and cherished, not by what is forbidden. How I want to cry to you, Quebec, that you have so much to offer the world. You have creativity, ingenuity, humour, joie de vivre, a beautiful landscape, a fascinating history (where else in the world has there been a “revolution tranquille”?), great food, music and warm people. All this is so uniquely yours. It is your identity that brings us, as immigrants, to your shores. You have strength in what you are already. By legislating difference, you take away what is noble and welcoming about Quebec and you replace it with division and discord.
Please, my dearest fellow Quebecers, reaffirm your most beautiful and honourable identity. Stand up and tell the world that you are not afraid of diversity; that what you have is strong enough to welcome difference; that you can engage in dialogue across culture and religion, that you can be enriched by the presence of others and still be yourselves. Do not let this proposed Chartre des valeurs québécoises speak for you.
With love for Quebec, my home
Rev. Diane Rollert
Minister, The Unitarian Church of Montreal
Rev. Diane RollertMinister/PasteureUnitarian Church of MontrealÉglise unitarienne de Montréal5035 boul de Maisonneuve O.Montréal (QC) H4A 1Y5http://www.ucmtl.ca
--
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
- Martin Luther King Jr.
June Maffin
Lance Woodruff
Lance Woodruff
MCOT Online News
MCOT World Television
Mobile: 087-070-0594
Email: lance.w...@gmail.comLance Woodruff, TY Court Apt. G2
968 Sukhumvit 55 (Thonglor)
Bangkok 10110 Thailand
Office: (662) 02-714-9504
Mobile: (662) 087-070-0594
Home: (662) 02-391-7359
Michel Gagnon
A very brief answer: you can't find the "Charter of Values" because it doesn't exist. At least not yet.
About one week ago, the Journal de Montréal leaked a story on this subject. Now I might add that the Journal de Montréal tends to be a bit sensationalist, looking a bit like the Toronto Sun, although it lost most of its blatantly sexist content about 15-20 years ago (a female in bathing suit sitting on a car hood does NOT help to sell a paper here in Québec). Apart from sports and murders, it likes to over-dramatize everything so that an article on bad service in a store typically becomes something where all young employees are lazy bums that never care about anything. You see the drift: moderate views don't sell.
Anyway, back to the story. There certainly is a bit of truth in it, but how much. It must come from one of those internal leaks sent anonymously in a brown envelope. It may be part of a preliminary study. For instance, when we discuss ideas on what should be a proper safety regulation for tire inflation (an actual subject I have been working on and off in the last 10 years), we look at scenarios like "what if we require all inflation to be done in a properly engineered safety cage", vs "what if tires are inflated lying flat on the floor, or when the wheel is attached to the car"? How many lives would be saved by option 1 vs what are the costs and practicalities? So my first thought was that the leaked document was simply one of the scenarios: i.e. no visible signs of religious affiliation at all vs status quo vs a third in-between option.
On second thought, since there hasn't been any official reaction in more than a week, a more plausible option is that of the trial balloon. Some high-ranking official was authorized to leak a "proposal". If there had been a general outcry, the government would have replied something like "We never had any idea like that". Now it will probably come up with a watered down version that most people will find fairly reasonable. English media – especially English papers – will describe it as racist or xenophobic, but they have a history of qualifying anything done under a PQ government as xenophobic (even a budget!)... even when they qualified a similar proposal carried by Liberals as wonderful! So cry wolf one too many times and you won't be considered seriously.
A hint that my second thought might be right is that we finally heard this week a few PQ members saying that "we need some kind of guidelines" and that the general intent of the government will be published on September 9th, a full 3 weeks after the leak and when everyone is back from Summer. So it won't be the final text (but it could be very close), and it will be released at the right time for maximum exposure in the media, maximum discussions in schools, offices, etc. Another hint of an engineered leak is that I can't remember the name, but it was leaked as a charter on acceptable religious signs in a non-religious state (un état laïc), and it slowly but surely became a charter on values of Québecers (la Charte des valeurs québécoises). (I'm not sure if I would translate the last two words as "values that define the province of Québec" or as "values that define or identify the citizens of Québec"; the latter is probably a more accurate translation, but there is a certain linguistic ambiguity – on purpose I think).
Now is it needed or not?
With the 1982 repatriation of the Constitution came a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that, I think, tends to be both very broad and not strict enough, so governments and large organized groups can find their way around it. And in the long run, either because of lawsuits or the fear of them, it creates two kinds of citizens. For instance :
– About 10 years ago, the parents of a young Sikh kid sued the school board and won, because the school board didn't allow the child to wear his ceremonial knife. But religion or no religion, why should we allow this when we suspend a kid who brings in a pen knife or an x-acto for the arts class (to cut various shapes in cardboard, for example)? Or even, in some schools, kids who bring in metal utensils for lunch? Either we allow all knives under 6" or we don't!
– In some large schools (typically Colleges and Universities) where they have many classes on the same subject, the trend in the last 20 years has been to do a unified exam for all groups rather than one exam per class. Official word is that it is more fair, but as a former professor, I find that the real reason is laziness (only one exam to prepare; yet even with the same program, my class on Tuesday night will never have the same results as your class on Friday morning, because the environment is different). When do they have those exams? Impossible to do during the week, so that used to be done on Saturday morning. But then, mostly in English-speaking universities, those exams were moved to Sundays. Why? Because, it was said, Jews can't work on Sabbath day, therefore having an exam on Saturday would be religious discrimination. While this specific question never went to courts, the courts have typically argued that there is discrimination if someone's Church (even if it is a minority within that Church) requires an action, but it is not discrimination if a Church strongly recommends an action.
– Another long debate that went to courts... The École de technologie supérieure (an engineering school in Montréal) had a problem with many Muslim students installing their mats in random places for required prayers. At that time, the school was growing very fast and overcrowding meant that they didn't have any empty classes. So they installed their mats in corridors and even in stairways, which alarmed safety officials (imagine 500 students trampling down the stars after a fire alarm). The courts have concluded that the school must provide an adequate place for prayer, because otherwise their "freedom of religion" would be attacked.
Yet at about the same time, Christians who wanted to pray were not able to get a room at anytime because the school is not a Catholic school. The courts basically agreed and said that indeed the school should NOT because a) it would favour one religious group over the other, and b) the Catholic Church does not require its members to regroup and pray at a specific time, therefore interested students could do it at home.
– At one time, Ontario approved religious-based marriage counselling and even arbitration in case of divorce. I'm sure it came from very good intent (i.e. mediation with one you trust), but images of Shariah-based divorce rules made by misogynist imams turned this proposal to ridicule. I'm sure you could make equally ridiculous statements with some Jewish leaders and the "get" or with some right-wing Roman-Catholic priest (aka Cardinal Ouellet) and the role of women, but that's another story.
– There have been conflicting decisions on what do do with women who wear a veil (are those young girls forced to wear it?) or a burka. In the latter case, what do we do with a "masked female" who wants to vote? Some Canadian jurisdictions seem OK with it, others aren't because she is hard to identify.
And what do we do with a man or woman who insists on being seen by a same-gender physician? Tell them to go home until they change their mind? And what if the husband comes with his sick wife and insists on a female physician for her? Switch doctors around? Send them home? Or kick out the husband and treat the wife with whoever is available, even if it is a male doctor? All three approaches have been used in various situations!
– There have been a few tragic stories like the Shafia (sp?) family. The parents were born in Pakistan or Bengladesh (not sure about the children) and they have been living in Montréal for 10 or 15 years. Problem is that the mother was a bit too "modern" and the daughters – especially the oldest – were too Canadian for their father. The oldest daughter even had a boyfriend; how shocking it is! So the family went for an outing in Niagara Falls and on their way back, the father, oldest son (and uncle?) killed the 3 women by drowning them in a lock near Cornwall. They were condemned for murder; a murder qualified as a religious crime in both English and French media. In a nutshell, it has been said that Sikh, Hindu and Muslim faith leaders are so backward thinking that people in those countries don't respect women and that we can't accept this kind of thinking in Québec.
Finally, things that haven't been touched by the Charter:
– In some key sectors, disabled people are discriminated in a way that would not even be allowed in U.S.. For instance, universal access to buildings or public transportation doesn't exist. Toronto and Vancouver have very good access to transit, but not many smaller cities in Ontario. As for Québec? Forget it! Paratransit has been considered as an equivalent option, even with its strict limits!
– It is still acceptable to charge twice as much for car insurance for 18-25 year old male drivers, even for those who never have an accident! To me, it is as unacceptable as it would be to prevent any female from working as a car mechanic because "most" females aren't strong enough for that job!
And there are double-standards too.
– Think of the Shafia family. At about the same time, Guy Turcotte and Isabelle Gaston, two physicians, were going through a separation and divorce. In February 2009, he killed their two children and tried (not very hard) to kill himself. He was accused of murder, but got away with "insanity". What strikes me is that nobody hinted that his Roman-Catholic (or Christian) background was instrumental in him killing the children or that he was culturally minded to do so. And it's very likely that he had a better lawyer than Mr. Shafia.
– Visible symbols of religious affiliation may bring in a strange message, either for Canadians of other faiths (or none) or for newcomers who escaped countries with religious persecution. So it's probably important that people in position of immediate authority (ex.: police officers or judges) are seen exclusively as representing the state. At the same time, there is in the National Assembly a crucifix standing above the head of the president of the house. It was given to Maurice Duplessis by cardinal Villeneuve (very conservative, even for the time) in 1936 as a symbol of a renewed alliance between the Church and state. They want to keep it in place as it is "part of our history". I would tend to believe it is part of our history (we can't wipe out the bad parts), but as such it should probably be removed from the National Assembly and hung in the passage where photos and paintings of former premiers are hung.
The original leaked "proposal" was to ban "les symboles ostentatoires d'appartenance religieuse" (conspicuous religious symbols) for people who work in positions of authority, or in positions where they are seen by the public, or in all positions in the civil service (all three variants have been written about). Right now, visible religious signs typically seen are:
– Veil around the face (not on the face) of many Muslim (?) females. I would make a wild guess and say that in neighbourhoods like Saint-Michel, Park Extension, Côte-des-Neiges and Plateau-Mont-Royal, 2-4 % of women wear one. These neighbourhoods have a total population of 300 000. Outside of these neighbourhoods, there hardly are any. In our Western society, the veil is often seen as a sign of "inferior women", therefore bad.
– Hassidic garnments. It represents almost 40% of the population in my immediate neighbourhood. But those people don't work in non-Hassidic non-Jewish companies anyway.
– Crosses. It use to be a fashion statement amongst non-practising Christian young adults 15-20 years ago. Now, we don't often see it. Some people wear nice broches or a tiny chain around their neck, but I don't think it would qualify as a conspicuous sign.
– Sikh turbans... We have very few of them. In my entire life, I think I have seen one in Montréal so far.
– I suspect that the clergy shirt would fall into that category, unless worn by a minister who is actually employed for pastoral duties in an institution. I tend to agree that one doesn't need to know that one's physician or teacher is also a priest or an imam at the first encounter.
So there is probably a need to define guidelines so that everyone is treated fairly (the notion of divine justice). But is the proposed remedy worst than the current laisser-faire? I wonder. In an ideal world, I would replace the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with a Charter of Responsibilities and Rights. I.e. as citizens, our first responsibility is to respect our neighbours, their values, their faith, etc. Then and only then come our rights.
And what about politics?
Another bit of information that is not unrelated is that our government is a minority government. While it was very frequent at the federal level, Québec did not have a minority government for 120 years. It then had one under Jean Charest (2007-2008) and this one under Pauline Marois (2011- ). So under a British-based system, a minority government could fall at any time... or its Premier could decide that now is the time to get a stronger mandate (which is what Jean Charest did after 18 months).
One reason for these two minority governments is Mario Dumont and his Action démocratique party. With a bunch of neophytes and totally inexperienced people, he did the 2007 election on a platform of Québec values and went up from 4 to 41 elected representatives. I should add that other factors like lack of trust for both other parties pushed him up. 18 months later, he lost it all. Now his party has been superseeded by the Coalition démocratique du Québec and this subject may also break the Coalition and bring us back to a 2-party system. The former Bouchard-Taylor commission is how Jean Charest killed the Action démocratique party. This could be how the Coalition dies... although François Legault (its leader) seems faster to react.
Bill 101 (the language law) came into force in 1977. It has been diluted by the courts and revised a few times, and some updates are needed. The latest round of modifications (under bill 14) didn't go that far because neither opposition party supports it, but most importantly, in the general population, bill 14 never gained any momentum. Many people agreed that it was good, other disagreed, but it seems that little political momentum could be gained on either side, and that changes – or the lack of them – were considered as pointless debates. Back in 1977, language was seen (rightly or wrongly) as something that could unite and define Québecers. "Make sure everyone speaks French (at least in the public arena) and that French is seen everywhere (hence very little was allowed in terms of English signs), and this will define Québec society." Also "make sure all kids coming from immigration are sent to French-language schools and they will integrate into Québec society".
I think the results of Bill 101 were striking, and not in a way portrayed by the media.
1. It killed the 1980 referendum. "We need independence", it was said, "because that's the only way we can save our language and culture". Not only the question was a bit wishy-washy, but for most French-speaking people, Bill 101 (especially before the courts struck down French-only sign provisions) proved that we could save our culture under the Canadian system. In hindsight, I am almost sure that without Bill 101, the Yes side would have won by a small margin, and with a more direct question like in 1995 (i.e. do you want separation?), that it would have won with a landslide.
2. English-Montréal and French-Montréal spoke to each other and are starting to fully integrate. Before Bill 22 (in 1972, under a Liberal government, by the way), French-speaking people who went shopping to Eaton's or Ogilvy's were often asked to "speak white" (no such problems for people speaking English with a horrible Russian accent, by the way), and English-speaking people who went shopping at Dupuis et frères were replied "J'comprends rien" (I don't understand). Now, for the most part, we have a well-integrated society, but it means that some French-speaking people (dinosaurs) complain of too much English-language exposure and some English-speaking people (dinosaurs) long for the good old days when they could live exclusively in English.
3. We got a multicultural society mostly living in and using French. For people older than 40 or 50, it is something new and unthinkable, but for our young children in Montréal, it is natural. At the end-of-the-year concert of my youngest daughter last June, they had printed out all the children's names: out of 30, 2-3 were "typical" French-Canadian names, 1 was a typical English-Canadian name and all others were from immigration in the last 25-35 years. Wonderful, but at the same time an uncomfortable change for many. Let's not forget that while Montréal has always been cosmopolitan (to a much lesser extent), most people older than 40 were born in smaller cities – either in Québec or elsewhere in Canada – that are very monolithic.
In conclusion
Now a well-written Charter could be a wonderful thing for Québec and its citizens (whatever language and religion they are). It may help define what a modern Québec stands for. It may solve the "identity crisis" in a positive way and may be a better answer than independence. It might even push the independence debate another 25-50 years away. But wrongly done, it will divide and bring in the kind of feelings expressed by Diane Rollert. And most importantly, it will keep our media and our public officials away from key questions like dignity, jobs and food.
As for reactions by our Federal leaders, I think that Justin Trudeau fell right in the trap with all those dollar-hungry media. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair was much more circumspect when he said (my words) that he believed most Quebecers want fair treatment of others, that he trusted the Québec government to be fair and that we have to wait until the formal text is out before we say anything against this government (aka doubting Thomas). But this time I have to say that our Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the best answer when he said almost all of the above and added to a nagging journalist that sometimes the PQ or some thinkers outside of the party are pushing "strange ideas" only for one reason: to foster criticism by English Canada, and that we must not fall into that trap. It was the first time in many years that I was proud of this Prime Minister! If only he could be equally non-partisan when he talks about Canada!
So I'll do as my Prime Minister suggests. I'll wait and see. And as a Christian, I will also pray. Not because of an imminent danger, but simply because we need leaders who govern for the well-being of ALL of us.
Regards,
Michel Gagnon – mga...@mgagnon.net
Saint James the Apostle
Anglican Church
Anglican Diocese of Montréal – Diocèse anglican de
Montréal
Montréal (Québec, Canada)
Dear Bruce,I hope this comes through. Being able to share and discuss this sort of thing is what I value so much about canang, and will much mourn when it is gone. I haven't seen the so-called Charter of Values; can Michel or someone else share?Many thanks,
Linda+