HISTORY 494: DISCUSSION 2 PREPARATION
“What is reasonable in reasonable accommodation?”
Background:
Over the course of the past three months, we have looked at some of the ways in which the population of Canada and Quebec has evolved over time. One of the recurring themes in our unit is that of assimilation. The French were interested in assimilating the First Nations people; the English were interested in assimilating the French; the Dominion of Canada was interested in assimilating the First Nations and assuring that new immigrants to the new country “blended in” to a white, European, cultural norm. In fact, from about 1867 to 1960, visible minorities and non-Christians were not welcomed with open arms into Canada’s cultural melange.
In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, Canada’s immigration policy changed so as to welcome all people regardless of colour or creed (i.e. religion). We also became a multicultural country – meaning that Canada’s identity now supports and encourages a variety of cultures. There is no one definition of what it means to be Canadian and all people can celebrate their cultural differences in both the private and public spheres.
Quebec, on the other hand, does not define itself as a multicultural society. Instead, its government prefers to use the term “pluricultural”, meaning that while we welcome people of all colours and creeds, newcomers are encouraged to assimilate into the culture of the majority in Quebec. While in private, new Canadians are encouraged to celebrate their individual cultures, in the public sphere, newcomers are expected to conform to the norms and values of the majority of the people living in Quebec. This is very similar to the assimilationist policy of the United States of America.
Quebec’s policy has come under fire in recent years, and many court challenges have resulted in the “accommodation” of certain ethnic/religious traditions in Quebec society. In short, ethnic or religious traditions which are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not deemed harmful to Quebec society at large have been “accommodated” (i.e. “allowed”). The Bouchard-Taylor Commission was appointed in 2007 to investigate the idea of “reasonable accommodation” and to report back to the Quebec government the following year.
Guiding Question: To what extent should newcomers be expected to assimilate into the mainstream of their new country?
Area of Interaction: Environments
Discussion Prompts:
· Do assimilationist policies interfere with Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
· Do you feel that the “charter” of Herouxville is fair?
· How would you define “reasonable accommodation”? What sorts of religious/ethnic traditions would it be “unreasonable” for us to “allow” in Quebec society?
· Do you feel that the U.S. metaphor of a “melting pot” is better at fostering societal harmony than our multicultural metaphor of a “patchwork quilt”?
Web Research:
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=fd063e77-99d6-4e9d-9ba4-75441a0be627&k=3168
1) Read the first five paragraphs of the article. What change was implemented vis a vis Greek schools in Quebec a couple of years ago?
http://herouxville-quebec.blogspot.com/
· Town Charter posted on Herouxville blog site (Primary Source)
2) According to the 5th paragraph, what message is being sent to newcomers to the town of Herouxville?
3) Read a couple of paragraphs in the town’s charter. What is the general tone of the charter?
4) Do you feel that the tone of the charter targets any one, specific group?
http://www.accommodements.qc.ca/ (Download the report)
· Primary document = Bouchard-Taylor report
5) Go to p. 144. Go to the section called “Distinction between Choice and Constraint”. Skim through this section as best as you can, and try to answer the following question: Why do Bouchard and Taylor argue FOR allowing girls to wear religious headdress to school? Try to summarize ONE of their arguments.
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/weblogs/anna_carastathis/1554
· The Dominion – grassroots news source, feminist (Concordia University)
6) Read points 5 and 6 about why a feminist group from Concordia was against the Bouchard-Taylor Commission. As best as you can, summarize ONE of their critiques.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Multicultural+growing+pains%3A+recent+panics+about+%22reasonable...-a0173422075
· A Montreal philosopher’s point of view: Daniel Marc Weinstock
University of Montreal (on advisory commission of Taylor-Bouchard Commission)
7) Scroll down to the article. In the first paragraph, does Weinstock claim that Canada’s multicultural policy is a success or a failure? What reasons does he give to back up his claim?
8) In the third paragraph, which two provinces are cited as challenging Canada’s notion of multiculturalism?
9) Read paragraph five. What does Weinstock claim has changed in recent years?
10) In the 7th paragraph, Weinstock refers to another author, claiming that we need to address certain realities if we are to embrace our multicultural character. What is the first “problem” that newcomers in Canada are facing?
11) In paragraph 10, does Weinstock believe that the government should interfere in the private lives of its citizens?
12) In paragraph 14, another author argues that wearing a hijab in public should be prohibited. What is her argument?