Skip to content

Where different views on Israel and Judaism are welcome.

  • Home
  • Subscribe / donate
  • Events calendar
  • News
    • Local
    • National
    • Israel
    • World
    • עניין בחדשות
      A roundup of news in Canada and further afield, in Hebrew.
  • Opinion
    • From the JI
    • Op-Ed
  • Arts & Culture
    • Performing Arts
    • Music
    • Books
    • Visual Arts
    • TV & Film
  • Life
    • Celebrating the Holidays
    • Travel
    • The Daily Snooze
      Cartoons by Jacob Samuel
    • Mystery Photo
      Help the JI and JMABC fill in the gaps in our archives.
  • Community Links
    • Organizations, Etc.
    • Other News Sources & Blogs
    • Business Directory
  • FAQ
  • JI Chai Celebration
  • [email protected]! video

Search

Archives

Support the JI 2021

Worth watching …

Worth watching …

Does Vitaly Beckman fool Penn & Teller a second time?

image - A graphic novel co-created by artist Miriam Libicki and Holocaust survivor David Schaffer for the Narrative Art & Visual Storytelling in Holocaust & Human Rights Education project

A graphic novel co-created by artist Miriam Libicki and Holocaust survivor David Schaffer for the Narrative Art & Visual Storytelling in Holocaust & Human Rights Education project. Made possible by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Recent Posts

  • B.C. observes Yom Hashoah
  • Stunning Concordia apology
  • Model of resilience
  • Counting the Omer at home
  • COVID’s impacts on mental health
  • Chai Quilt grows and changes
  • Evaluating info online
  • Joe Segal receives Rix
  • Community milestones … Pulver, Wolak, Broca & Moskovitz
  • Worshipping with joy
  • Seeking siddur’s return
  • Grilling kebabs for Lag b’Omer
  • ‘ימים טובים חלק ב
  • ימים טובים
  • Local Yom Ha’atzmaut
  • Shoah education continues
  • Reason to worry a lot
  • Can King Bibi hang on?
  • Yom Hashoah commemorations
  • Focus on Uyghur genocide
  • Shalhevet annual gala
  • Memoir, tribute, history
  • Dance-opera closer to final
  • R2R fest teaches, entertains
  • A great-grandmother’s song
  • JNF Pacific’s fresh face
  • Navigating gender, sexuality
  • Penn & Teller stumped

Recent Tweets

Tweets by @JewishIndie

Tag: Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Quebec’s underlying goal

Sometimes in complex or far-reaching events, a small, seemingly less significant factor can illuminate a larger understanding. Successive efforts by Quebec governments to enforce laïcité, a policy of compulsory secularism in the delivery of public services, have included a minor exception that really speaks to the inequality such efforts seek to create.

Since 1936, a not-at-all-subtle crucifix has hung above the speaker’s chair in the legislative chamber of the Quebec National Assembly. A week ago, the Quebec government voted to take down the crucifix as part of a much broader policy against religious symbolism in the province’s public life. Even as they proposed policies that would ban religiosity in the forms of Muslim, Sikh and Jewish head coverings and other items, such as pendants with stars of David or crucifixes, previous governments have contended that the legislature’s cross is exceptional. In the narrative advanced across a decade of this debate, the cross represents an indisputable aspect of Quebec history. Reading between the lines of this argument, the crucifix – the definitive symbol of Christianity – transcends its religious particularity, presumably on the idea that Christianity was an inherent part of Quebec’s history and development.

The message of this exceptionalism is clear as a bell: this place was founded on Christian principles and those of other religious traditions, despite whatever contemporary contributions they might make to Quebec society, rank below the founding religion even as we seek to erase all of them from the public eye. Christianity, in other words, is a first among unequals.

To their credit, the government of Premier François Legault is not excepting the crucifix from this latest bill aiming to impose secularism. The bill, which was introduced last week by the centre-right Coalition de l’avenir du Quebec government elected last year, has all the characteristics that have been discussed in recent years by various governments intent on erasing outward appearances of religious difference. In the provision of government services in which an employee has “coercive” influence – including police, prison guards, judges and teachers – kippot, chadors, turbans, kirpans, crucifixes and anything else that speaks to an individual’s religious affiliation will be banned.

The decision on the National Assembly’s crucifix at least pays lip service to the idea of equanimity in the crushing of religious identity. But it cannot erase the foolishness and inherent injustice of the move. The Quebec government makes absolutely no defence against the charge that the bill contravenes Canada’s and Quebec’s constitutional protections of individual and religious rights. In introducing the new law, the government stated it would use the notwithstanding clause, exempting the law from those constitutional safeguards.

The injustice is a matter of principle. The government – backed, according to public opinion polls, by most Quebecers – is fully prepared to infringe on the rights of people who heed obligations to display certain outward evidence of religiosity. Depending on interpretation and levels of observance, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and other people are required to wear identifiably religious objects. Lay Christians, by contrast, are not. A crucifix necklace is a choice, not a requirement. For observant Jewish men, a kippah is not optional.

On a related front, it is illuminating to hear non-Muslims discuss whether a chador, hijab or niqab is a cultural or a religious requirement. Over the years, some who have justified banning head coverings have contended that Muslim law does not require them. The fact that many or most of those making this case are non-Muslims adds insult to injury: not only will we argue that we don’t want you wearing your religious garb, we will go so far as to argue that you can’t even interpret your religion correctly.

Aside from the principle of the matter, the nuts and bolts of the proposed law guarantee confusion and offence. The bill grandfathers existing employees, meaning that a currently employed teacher who wears some form of religious accoutrement will be free to continue doing so, but a new hire would not. More bizarre is that, if they were to receive a promotion – from teacher to vice-principal, say – the grandfather clause would be removed, and so would the religious article. The opportunities for mayhem abound.

Ostensibly, the bill, which is really the culmination of years of discussion around “reasonable accommodation” and similar concepts in Quebec society, is intended to preserve the importance of Quebec culture. Understandably, as an undeniably distinct cultural and linguistic minority vastly outnumbered by anglophone North Americans, Quebecers are vigilant in preserving their uniqueness. But it is tough to discern any substantive advantages this bill will grant to Quebec’s distinct culture other than to underscore assumptions of intolerance and insularity. The genuine intent of the law – and the larger ideology that drives it – is to encourage assimilation into a dominant (French, nominally Christian) population. In a visit to France last year, Legault didn’t mince words. He wants a Quebec that is more “European.”

Many Canadians outside Quebec accept that some accommodations are necessary to save what makes Quebec unique. We see this as something apart from the xenophobic nationalisms sweeping Europe. But what is inherent in Quebec society that would not also be found in Swiss or Finnish or Hungarian society to justify banning symbols of different cultures? If Quebecers have a right to “protect” their cultural identity through admittedly discriminatory laws, why wouldn’t Polish and Ukrainian people?

Ultimately, a law preventing religiously observant people from displaying the evidence of their faith will not strengthen or save pur laine Quebec society, unless by doing so it discourages such people from coming to Quebec in the first place. And there’s the key to understanding this bill.

One of the first steps Legault took as premier was to reduce Quebec’s share of immigrants by 20%. This was about the same time he went to Paris and declared he wanted more migrants who are European. With this in mind, the secularism bill is probably less about the people who are already in Quebec than about sending a message to those considering a move there. The bill says stay away, Quebec does not welcome you.

Posted on April 5, 2019April 2, 2019Author The Editorial BoardCategories From the JITags Charter of Rights and Freedoms, discrimination, immigration, politics, Quebec, religion
LEAF works for equality

LEAF works for equality

Michele Landsberg and her daughter, Ilana Landsberg-Lewis. (photo from West Coast LEAF)

Michele Landsberg and her daughter Ilana Landsberg-Lewis laughed and spoke over each other in an animated joint telephone interview with the Jewish Independent. The two women, who are among Canada’s most influential activists, agreed more than they disagreed, and their ideas and opinions flowed and meshed in a way made possible perhaps only through a lifetime of dialogue.

The mother-daughter duo will be keynote speakers at West Coast LEAF’s Equality Breakfast March 11. West Coast LEAF was founded in 1985, alongside its sister organization, the Women’s Legal and Education Action Fund (LEAF National), to ensure that the promises contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would become a reality for women in British Columbia. West Coast LEAF’s founders recognized that there would be challenges and great potential in putting the abstract legal rights of Section 15 (the equality provision) into action through the courts. The annual Equality Breakfast generally falls around International Women’s Day, which is May 8.

Landsberg is a writer and social activist who wrote for the Globe and Mail and Chatelaine before a 25-year run as a columnist for the Toronto Star. An officer of the Order of Canada, Landsberg’s name is synonymous with feminist perspectives on Canadian and global events.

Landsberg-Lewis is a labor and human rights lawyer. She is the executive director of the Stephen Lewis Foundation, which she co-founded with her father, the former leader of Ontario’s New Democratic party, who also served as Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations. The foundation works with grassroots organizations in sub-Saharan Africa to turn the tide of the AIDS pandemic.

Landsberg-Lewis said she never felt any pressure to go into the family business. In addition to her mother’s writing and activism and her father’s political and diplomatic career, her grandfather David Lewis was leader of the federal NDP.

“There was always interesting and lively conversation,” she said. “Whatever column Mom was writing, whatever Dad was doing … all three of the kids, but I was the eldest, were encouraged to be part of that thinking and lively debate. Yes, I landed very firmly a millimetre away from the tree but, if you ask me, that was the right place to be.”

In her work with her father, Landsberg-Lewis sees the catastrophic advance of AIDS in Africa, but is also inspired by the responses of women who are, she said, “the most affected and infected” by the disease.

“They’re bearing the brunt of the apocalypse of AIDS, they are raising the children, they are pulling their communities together, they are the ones who are trying to effect change, they are the ones who are most adversely affected by discriminatory laws and, on that level, it’s pretty grim,” she said. On the other hand, she continued, despite global funding for fighting AIDS flatlining, affected women are stepping up.

“Take the grandmothers, for instance, who are raising 17 million orphaned children, who were living in isolation, stigma, absolute abject poverty, and were terribly grief stricken because of the loss of their adult children, and they get up the next morning and they look after all these kids. And more than that now – you see that they are beginning to run for local councils and land rights councils and they’re pushing for pensions and pushing for better health care for older women, and so there’s a groundswell of demands for their own rights to be recognized,” she said. “The world is being negligent. This is not surprising or unusual when it comes to women, but the women themselves, as usual, are not waiting for that support, they’re just making it happen.”

Back in North America, a whole different type of change is happening, both mother and daughter agree. Feminists who remember the fights of the 1950s and ’60s are coming up against a generation of young women with a very different idea of what equality and feminism mean. The recent comments by former U.S. secretary of state Madelaine Albright and feminist icon Gloria Steinem, who is a friend of Landsberg’s, nearly led to inter-generational warfare on social media.

Steinem apologized for her comment that young women are abandoning Hillary Clinton’s campaign for Bernie Sanders’ “because that’s where the boys are.” Landsberg blames a grueling book tour and Steinem’s emphatic support for Clinton for the comment, but added she thinks Steinem was getting at an important point when she misspoke.

“I think she meant that young women are still swayed by the power dynamics of our very gendered system, our gendered culture,” said Landsberg. “Boys have more clout and presence in the political world and young women tend to take their cues from them still, quite often, not always, obviously. I think that’s what she meant: that they are swayed by young men’s enthusiasm for Bernie.”

Landsberg-Lewis interjected, contending that the division between Clinton and Sanders supporters is based on ideology more than gender.

Landsberg, who admits she has never shared her friends’ enthusiasm for Clinton, leapt on Albright’s comment, “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”

“If we really want to get it right, her quote is misguided,” Landsberg said. “It should be ‘there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support feminist women.’ Not just any woman, because there was [British prime minister Margaret] Thatcher.”

Clinton, Landsberg said, is “not the kind of woman we can look to to undo the power that has oppressed many, many people.… She is part of the establishment, she is backed by Wall Street, she has endorsed many wars and would endorse more wars as president.”

The rise of Sanders, the democratic socialist whose campaign bills itself as a movement for change, is a good sign on several fronts, say the two. Feminism, among other movements, has struggled in the face of American individualism. This is something that differs in Canada, they agreed, but may signal a revival of movement feminism as more Americans hear Sanders’ message of shared responsibility.

“He’s talking about collective responsibility for changing the situation of women, collective power in collective action and vision,” said Landsberg-Lewis. “And I think that’s an extraordinarily powerful antidote to the individualism that has, I think, for young women – not all young women, not all the time – but has eclipsed the sense of feminism as really being about a movement as opposed to individual power.”

Moving to Canadian politics, mother and daughter both expressed optimism.

“I think the whole country woke up the day after the election and realized that that bad headache they’d had for 10 years was gone,” Landsberg said, laughing. “I think we had a nationwide depression under that grim regime and people felt a sense of relief that we had a new beginning.”

She’ll be watching the new government’s approach to a national child-care plan and worries that Trudeau may be too insulated in the world of “nannydom” to understand that affordable child care is key to women’s equality.

“It is very exciting to have a prime minister who runs around calling himself a feminist,” said Landsberg-Lewis. “I think that that is not a small thing. It’s a first time thing and it’s a big deal.”

“I am thrilled Michele and Ilana are coming together for our Equality Breakfast,” said West Coast LEAF interim executive director Alison Brewin. She said, “The fact that they are mother and daughter reflects the intergenerational nature of the fight to advance women’s equality. West Coast LEAF uses the law to make change, but the work comes in waves that catch and move mothers and daughters, fathers and sons – Michelle and Ilana represent our national struggle for justice.”

Tickets for the West Coast LEAF Equality Breakfast March 11, 7 a.m., at Fairmont Hotel Vancouver are $90 (tax receipt for eligible portion) from 2016equalitybreakfast.eventbrite.ca.

Format ImagePosted on February 26, 2016February 25, 2016Author Pat JohnsonCategories LocalTags Alison Brewin, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, equality, feminism, Ilana Landsberg-Lewis, justice, Michele Landsberg, West Coast LEAF
Proudly powered by WordPress