secularism Archives - Page 5 of 7

Open Letter to TheConversation: An Organ of Anti-Quebec Propaganda

2018-12-29

In this blog I review a series of very dubious articles which appeared over the last year or so on the website TheConversation, all of which reveal a pronounced anti-Quebec prejudice.

Sommaire en français Dans ce blogue je passe en revue une série de textes très douteux, parus depuis un peu plus d’un an sur le site web TheConversation, qui révèlent tous un fort préjugé anti-Québéc.

Dear Editor of TheConversation,

When I first read the article “Québec’s fashion police: A century of telling women what not to wear” by Donica Belisle in TheConversation, I thought it was probably the worst article I had ever read. The article dishonestly attempts to equate two actions which are diametrically opposed: Catholic obscurantism in the past with Quebec’s current efforts to reduce the influence of religious obscurantism on public institutions. Belisle displays total ignorance of the secularism issue which is at the heart of this whole controversy. Furthermore, she denigrates Quebec society by painting it with the brush of the Catholic far-right, while ignoring the Islamist far-right which is far more active in Quebec.

My colleague Michel Lincourt has written to TheConversation in order to explain just how shoddy Donica Belisle’s article is. I certainly agree with his criticism. But I consider that he was in fact a little too kind. Firstly, he used the expression “Quebec bashing” to describe Belisle’s article, whereas in my opinion a stronger term, such as “anti-Quebec propaganda” or “anti-Québécois racism” for example, might be more appropriate. Secondly, Michel concentrates on one single article and thus perhaps did not notice a disturbing pattern of which TheConversation is guilty.

For my part, I did a search for “Quebec” on your website and discovered that Belisle’s article is not the worst. My search turned up a list of six other articles, all published within the last 15 months, which range in quality from very bad to atrocious. They all have much in common with Belisle’s writing. I list them here, with a brief summary of each.

Quebec’s niqab ban uses women’s bodies to bolster right-wing extremism, Yasmin Jiwani, 2017-10-23.
This screed condemns the previous Québec government’s Bill 62 while completely misunderstanding its import. A ban on both face-coverings in public services and religious symbols worn by public servants would be an excellent idea, but the Bill 62 did NOT do that. It did not enact religious neutrality—and even less secularism. It simply pretended to ban face-coverings while legislating exceptions which made the ban extremely weak. The purpose was not “to bolster right-wing extremism” as Jiwani claims in her paranoid title. The Bill was a cynical attempt by the Quebec Liberal Party to pretend to satisfy the Québécois’ overwhelming desire for secularism while doing practically nothing. But even such an impotent law was too much for some, such as Jiwani, who raves about the “ultra-right” in Quebec. The only far-right in Québec is constituted by those who oppose secularism by dishonestly and grossly misrepresenting it.
The link between Quebec’s niqab law and its sovereignty quest, Efe Peker, 2017-10-29.
The title’s obvious purpose is to frighten the reader by brandishing the boogeyman of “sovereignty.” Peker then starts by reassuring the reader that he is not “old-stock Quebecois” because, apparently, the opinion of such a person cannot be trusted. That sounds like racism to me. Peker employs the tendentious term “Catho-laïcité” instead of secularism or laïcité, thus revealing his prejudices once again. Enormous progress has been made in removing the Catholic symbols which were ubiquitous in Quebec only decades ago. The Charter of Secularism proposed in 2013-2014, an excellent initiative which Peker dismisses as a “mess,” would have applied to all religions, but Peker sees only religious discrimination.
Islamophobia in Québec: An ideology rooted in 20^th century imperialism, Frederick Burrill, 2017-12-10.
This article immediately loses all credibility because of its use of the loaded and unacceptable expression “Islamophobia.” To fear Islam (or any other religion) is not a phobia, rather it is simply due diligence. Burrill refers to the journalist and secularist Janette Bertrand as “feminist” where the quotes around the word clearly indicate his contempt for the former television personality, much loved by Québécois. Finally, Burrill’s attempt to denigrate contemporary Quebec secularism by rooting it in Catholic missionary propaganda of the early 20^th century is beyond ridiculous.
The hypocrisy of Québec’s move to ban religious dress, Richard Moon, 2018-10-22.
Moon repeats a theme we have already heard countless times from numerous anti-secularists: the observation that keeping the crucifix in the National Assembly is “hypocrisy.” But like all of them, he fails to recognize that removing the crucifix without banning religious symbols worn by public servants would also be hypocritical. The only correct solution is to do both: both government installations and public servants on duty must be free of obvious religious symbols. Moon fails to mention that secularist organizations in Quebec overwhelmingly supported both the Charter of Secularism in 2013-2014 and CAQ’s recent proposals while at the same time calling for removal of that crucifix.
Québec’s push to ban the hijab is ‘sexularism’, Yasmin Jiwani, 2018-11-05.
The very title of this article is insane. Jiwani denigrates CAQ for being “exclusionary” and throws in some fatuity about “the margins of race, religion and gender,” only one of which—religion—is relevant to the issue. Two things are clear however: (1) the author deliberately conflates race and religion, so that she can then throw false accusations of racism at secularists; and (2) she presents the wearing of the Islamist veil as a woman’s right of choice. Both are unacceptable deceptions practised regularly by Islamist ideologues. The latter is an example of their inversion strategy, i.e. presenting a sexist constraint (the veil) as a “right,” thus rebranding misogyny as pseudo-feminism.
Notwithstanding clause or not, Québec must accommodate its employees, Sébastien Parent, 2018-12-05.
Parent fails to distinguish between religious neutrality and secularism, as if they were synonyms. The former is a weak and incomplete subset of the latter, lacking the necessary separation between religions and state which is at the core of secularism. Parent repeatedly uses the misleading expression “reasonable accommodation” when in fact he is talking about religious accomodation. The former is a euphemism whose true meaning is the latter. The fallacious word “reasonable” distracts from the fact that accommodating religions is never acceptable. Making exceptions to laws in order to accommodate religious practices is to grant unacceptable privileges to religions. The fact that courts sometimes impose such accommodations simply shows that legislation needs to changed. In the meantime, the Quebec government will wisely use the notwithstanding clause to work around this problem.

Beyond the particularities of each of these seven articles, there are common threads running through the series:

A complete and wilful misunderstanding of secularism and a failure even to cover the relevant issues.
False accusations of discrimination against Muslims. The observation that bans on religious symbols will appear to target Muslims is a result of the fact that (a) Islamists claim to speak for all Muslims in general (they do not) while (b) these same Islamists promote the wearing of the misogynist veil in order to gain political influence. (Thanks largely to incompetent journalists, the strategy is working.)
An adulteration and inversion of feminism, as if the veil were a feminist choice, when in reality it is one of the worst expressions of misogyny ever invented.
Conflation of race (innate, immutable characteristics of the individual) with religion (a choice which can change).

Even more serious is what is lacking from this series of articles:

No attempt to understand republicanism and universalism and how they inform and support secularism.
No attempt to present the very solid arguments in favour of bans on religious symbols and face-coverings in public services, let alone even begin to refute them.
No attempt to present the views of secular, modern Muslims who support religious symbol bans.
No mention of the fact that Quebec already bans political symbols worn by public servants on duty. Extending this to religious symbols is an eminently reasonable and fair measure to take.
No acknowledgement whatsoever of the problematic nature of the expression “Islamophobia.”
No consideration of multiculturalism and the many relevant criticisms of that ideology which encourages isolation of communities.
No criticism whatsoever of the problems with Islam and Islamism. (Example: The extremely damaging taboo against apostasy.) Apparently only Christian—and preferably Catholic—obscurantism may be mentioned, let alone criticized.
Failure to recognize that Québécois are more advanced on the issue of secularism than Canadians outside Quebec and, especially, far more progressive that hostile media such as TheConversation.

I notice that your website’s motto is “Academic rigour, journalistic flair.” What a bad joke. Your series of articles about Quebec and secularism is a cesspool of journalistic incompetence, wilful ignorance and contempt for the Québécois, coupled with a disturbing tendency to repeat some of the classic elements of Islamist propaganda.

Next blog: Fourth Anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo Massacre

The Dishonesty of the Globe and Mail

2018-10-16

I criticize a particulary dishonest editorial, recently published by the Toronto newspaper The Globe and Mail, which opposes secularism and denounces the new CAQ government for doing what the newspaper itself proposes, that is, leaving the crucifix in the National Assembly. The editorialists also indulge in a little Quebec-bashing along the way.

Sommaire en français Je critique un éditorial particulièrement malhonnête, récemment paru dans le journal torontois The Globe and Mail, qui s’oppose à la laïcité et prône la même mesure qu’il dénonce chez la CAQ, c’est-à-dire, laisser le crucifix à l’Assemblée nationale. Les éditorialistes font aussi un peu de Quebec-bashing en passant.

On October 11^th, the Globe and Mail published an editorial under the title: “By defending a crucifix, Quebec crosses the line into hypocrisy.” It is replete with misconceptions and misleading assertions. The key thesis of the editorial is the contrast between two announcements made by Quebec’s new CAQ government led by François Legault:

Banning religious symbols worn by public servants in positions of authority.
Leaving the crucifix above the speaker’s chair in the National Assembly where it is, using the excuse that it is part of Quebec’s heritage.

All secularists in Quebec agree: that crucifix must go…

There is indeed a serious inconsistency here. But the editorial declares that “Quebec” is hypocritical. No, if anyone is being hypocritical here, it is Legault and the CAQ, not Quebec or Quebeckers in general. All secularists in Quebec agree: that crucifix must go, perhaps moved to a museum. (Furthermore, the law governing the National Assembly must be modified to prohibit any future displays of religious symbols in the legislature, including symbols worn by MNAs.) And yet the Globe and Mail editorial itself calls for leaving the crucifix in place! Why? In order to justify their opposition to any ban on religious symbols. The editorialists simply want to block any progress towards secularism.

The editorial mentions that, ten years ago, the Bouchard-Taylor commission recognized that the crucifix in such a prominent place in the N.A. is a powerful symbol linking legislative power to the majority religion. Exactly! That is why it must be removed. But the editorial neglects to mention that the same Commission recommended a ban on religious symbols worn by public servants in positions of authority, very similar to what CAQ has recently proposed! (There is one important difference: CAQ would extend the ban to apply to teachers.)

Identity Politics

The editorial whines repeatedly that Quebec is indulging in “divisive identity politics.” This is a common complaint made by English-Canadian journalists in order to denigrate Quebec. Yes, leaving the crucifix could certainly be called identitarian. But the ban on religious symbols is the direct opposite of identity politics, the goal being to make the Quebec public service religiously neutral, in the same way that it is already politically neutral (because political symbols are already banned for all public servants).

The Canadian government regularly practices its own aggressive brand of identity politics by promoting dangerous cultural relativism…

When it comes to identity politics, nothing can compare to fundamentalist Islamists who aggressively promote the hijab and even the niqab as markers of identity. The Canadian government regularly practices its own aggressive brand of identity politics by promoting dangerous cultural relativism (which it euphemistically calls “multiculturalism”) as essential to the Canadian identity—and denigrating anyone who might question it, as many Quebeckers do. Canadian multiculturalism is very divisive because it attaches greater importance to ethno-religious identity than to citizenship; most importantly, it is incompatible with the secularism which most Quebeckers support.

Demonizing Secularism

The editorial is particularly tendentious when it refers to the “Parti Québécois’s odious Charter of Quebec Values.” Firstly, the name is incorrect. Secondly, the PQ Charter of Secularism was anything but odious. If adopted, it would have constituted a major step towards secularism. All secularists in Quebec supported it, as did a majority of the population. But since it contained a ban on religious symbols, the Globe and Mail hates it. It was the Charter’s opponents who were odious, slandering both the PQ government and Quebeckers in general with all sorts of egregious epithets. And now, enemies of CAQ’s proposed ban are at it again.

The editorial claims that there is “public outrage” against CAQ. Nonsense. On the contrary, there is a wave of great hope generated by the promise of this new government, and a fervent desire that it not back down in the face of the virulent opposition, such as that from the Globe and Mail.

The demo was basically a circus of anti-Quebec bigotry and fundamentalist Islam…

There was a so-called “anti-racist” demonstration held in Montreal less than a week after the CAQ victory. The demo was basically a circus of anti-Quebec bigotry and fundamentalist Islam, along with various sympathizers such as the “Antifa” (who should more properly be called “anarcho-Salafists”) who denounced the CAQ as “racist”—thus conflating race with religion in order to slander secularists. Noticeably absent, however, were those of a Muslim background who support secularism, such as AQNAL (Quebec Association of North-Africans for Secularism).

Freedom of Conscience

The employee can put their crucifix, hijab, turban, tin-foil hat, Pastafarian colander or whatever back on at the end of their shift.

But let us get to the crux (forgive the pun) of the matter: Why should religious symbols be banned for state employees, especially those in positions of authority? The answer is obvious: to protect the freedom of conscience of all citizens, who have a right to public services without staff pushing their personal ideology in the public’s face. Political symbols are already banned; this must be extended to religious ones. Such a measure does not threaten freedom of religion. On the contrary, it protects freedom of religion and freedom from religion, both of which are encompassed by freedom of conscience. The ban would only apply during working hours. The employee can put their crucifix, hijab, turban, tin-foil hat, Pastafarian colander or whatever back on at the end of their shift.

No rights are absolute, for they are limited by effects they have on the rights of others. The Globe and Mail editorial laments that CAQ would limit religious believers’ “right to express their religious beliefs as they see fit” but there is no right to practice one’s religion while on the job! The ban would have zero effect on religious practice outside the workplace.

Discrimination Against Non-Believers

…the Globe and Mail supports a world in which religious advertising is allowed everywhere…

The editorial enjoins Quebec politicians to show a “rational generosity of spirit.” Yet the Globe and Mail supports a world in which religious advertising is allowed everywhere, even on the bodies of government employees, thus threatening the rights of everyone—believer, atheist, agnostic—who does not want such propaganda imposed on them. I own several t-shirts which declare loudly and proudly that I am an atheist. But I would not wear any of them to work if I were employed in the public service, because I would not be so boorish as to push my personal convictions onto a captive audience in the workplace. I demand the same courtesy of religious believers. A rational generosity of spirit would imply accepting the duty of discretion when one works in such a position.

…the Globe and Mail promotes discrimination against atheists…

The Globe and Mail editorialists demand no such discretion from religious believers. Rather, they promote a major privilege for Roman Catholicism by leaving the crucifix in the N.A., even after hypocritically denouncing the CAQ for doing the same. The Globe and Mail then promotes privilege for all religions—to the detriment of non-believers—by opposing any ban on religious symbols in the public service. Thus, the Globe and Mail promotes discrimination against atheists and other non-believers.

Next blog: My Favourite Graph

The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Antisecularists

The movement against Legault and the CAQ has zero credibility.

2018-10-08

A recent demonstration in Montreal by so-called “anti-racist” activists illustrates yet again that the enemies of secularism are sadly lacking in moral and intellectual integrity. In particular, they deliberately conflate race and religion, thus aiding and abetting religious fanaticism.

Sommaire en français Une récente manifestation à Montréal par des militants soi-disant “anti-racistes” montre encore une fois que les ennemis de la laïcité manquent tristement d’intégrité morale et intellectuelle. En particulier, ils confondent délibérément la race et la religion, favorisant ainsi le fanatisme religieux.

Shortly after being elected on October 1^st 2018, the new premier, François Legault, and his CAQ party announced their intention to start implementing various secularism measures, in particular, banning religious symbols worn by public servants in positions of authority, i.e. police, judges, prosecutors, prison guards and teachers. This is incomplete, but nevertheless an excellent start to implementing secularism in Quebec and supported by the majority of the population and basically all secularists in Quebec.

Click to enlarge
Demo poster, slightly modified
to make it more honest.

But there are forces who oppose secularism and do so in an extremely dishonest manner. Yesterday (2018-10-07) a demonstration was held in Montréal to protest the new measures. The demo was announced as being against racism, but a major focus was on denouncing Legault and the CAQ as racist.

The fallacy of conflating race and religion is a common tactic used by anti-secularists. It has been refuted countless times, but because of the extreme dishonesty of anti-secularists who falsely claim to be “anti-racist,” it is necessary to do so once again. So I summarize:

Race involves innate and immutable characteristics of the individual, whereas a religion is an ideology—a collection of ideas and beliefs—which can change overnight.
Religion and race are thus completely different phenomena.
Religion may be freely chosen if and only if there is freedom of conscience. Unfortunately, most religious believers have a religion forced on them as children, via indoctrination.
One of the key pillars of secularism is freedom of conscience, i.e. to make sure that individuals have the freedom and the autonomy to choose or reject an ideology which others may try to force on them. Thus, public institutions must not show preference for any religion.
The secular measures announced by Legault and CAQ are obviously not racist. Their purpose is to keep religious bias out of the affairs of state and government. They apply to all religions.
The secular measures announced by Legault and CAQ are clearly necessary because public servants in positions of authority must not display any religious partisanship.

Furthermore, the anti-secularists masquerading as “anti-racists” are dishonest in several ways:

The conflation of race with religion is clearly a fallacy, a strategy used in order to defame secularists as “racist.”
The conflation of race with religion constitutes a denial of freedom of conscience, condemning individuals to the religion into which they were born, a product of pure chance. It is a denial of a basic human right, the right to think for oneself.
They use the crucifix in the Quebec National Assembly as an excuse to allow public servants in authority to wear blatant religious symbols. Of course that crucifix must be removed, and Legault’s decision to keep it there is unacceptable, but that is no excuse. Two wrongs do not make a right. The government needs to remove the crucifix:
1. because it is the right thing to do; and
2. in order to deprive anti-secularists of one of their favourite propaganda ploys.

Furthermore, the opposition to any form of dress code is nonsensical and dishonest, because:

In the Quebec public service, politically partisan symbols may not be worn by employees on duty. It is thus hypocritical to allow religious symbols to be worn. Religious symbols are generally very political.
Dress codes are a widespread phenomenon throughout society. For example, the Canadian parliament imposes certain restrictions on Members of Parliament. The Rules of Order and Decorum stipulate that “to be recognized to speak in debate, on points of order or during Question Period, tradition and practice require all Members, male or female, to dress in contemporary business attire.” Why should any MP be allowed the privilege of being exempted from this rule simply because of his or her religion?
It is a major goal of Islamism to impose the wearing of the Islamic veil anywhere and everywhere. By opposing all dress codes, anti-secularists are objectively allied with extreme right-wing political Islam. Anti-secularists are not anti-fascist, they are objectively pro-fascist.

Given the above considerations, we see that those who denounce the new Quebec government as “racist,” because of its secular measures, are both intellectually bankrupt, for their arguments are fundamentally irrational, and morally bankrupt, because they oppose freedom of conscience and support the agenda of a far-right religious movement.

One small glimmer of reason from an individual who is normally a staunch ally of the anti-secularists: Manon Massé of Québec solidaire has publically stated that Legault and the CAQ are not racist. Very good. But she nevertheless opposes Legault’s plans because QS would not include teachers in the religious symbol ban. Furthermore, she did not, as far as I know, distance herself from the so-called “anti-racist” demonstration.

Anyone who cares sincerely about child welfare, especially the well-being of believers’ children, will support Legault’s proposed ban on religious symbols worn by teachers, thus helping to make public schools a refuge from religious indoctrination.

One final observation about the modern anti-racist movement, and this should come as no surprise to anyone: that movement is often racist itself. In particular, here in Quebec, so-called “anti-racist” activists often accuse Quebeckers in general of being racist. This itself is a racist attitude, an expression of anti-Québécois ethnic bigotry. In reality, the vast majority of Québécois, including those who voted for the centre-right CAQ, are more progressive that many of those activists.

Relevant Links:

Les manifestants contre le racisme s’adressent à Legault, Ugo Giguère, La Presse, 2018-10-07.
Des manifestants contre le racisme ciblent la CAQ, La Presse canadienne, 98.5 Montréal, 2018-10-07.
Signez cette lettre d’appui à la laicité., Marco Leclerc, Discernement, 2018-10-07.

Next blog: The Dishonesty of the Globe and Mail

Quebec-Bashing: Three Recent Examples

2018-09-11, Updated 2018-09-12

In this blog I present three recent articles, published in English-language media, each of which denigrates Quebec and the Québécois in a spurious, dishonest and sometimes slanderous manner.

Sommaire en français Dans le présent blogue je décris trois récents articles, parus dans des médias anglophones, dont chacun dénigre le Québec et les Québécois, et ce, d’une manière fallacieuse, malhonnête et parfois diffamatoire.

Quebec-bashing is a very popular sport in Canada outside (and sometimes inside) Quebec. Ever since the British conquest of New France some 250 years ago, the Québécois have been the whipping boys and girls of Canada, the poor, weird people, from a priest-ridden region, who talk funny and fail to practice the obviously superior religion of Anglicanism. For two centuries, poverty and second-class (or lower) status were the norm for the majority of Québécois. A few decades ago, in the Montreal area, French-speakers earned less than all major immigrant groups who in turn earned less than English-speakers.

Of course, things have changed greatly since then. The change has been especially significant during the last half-century, and for that, the Québécois themselves can take most of the credit. With the Quiet Revolution, Quebec shook off the yoke of Roman Catholic domination (which had been maintained by the British conqueror for pragmatic reasons of social control) and made dramatic progress politically, socially and economically.

With that major rite of passage, that movement towards collective maturity, the idea of forming an independent nation, preferably a secular republic, became popular. But, not suprisingly, the Quebec independence movement scared the fucking bejesus out of other Canadians, who reacted strongly against it, sometimes with rational argument, but more often than not with panic and bitter resentment. And thus, a new wave of Quebec-bashing was born, this time adding fear to the already overwhelming contempt which had always been there. According to the bigots who engage in this sport of Quebec-bashing, Quebec nationalists in general, and independentists in particular, are “racist,” “xenophobic” or worse. And these slurs have simply been recycled in the context of Quebec’s recent attempts to complete the secularization process which it began a half-century or more ago.

This all came to a head in 2013-2014 when the independentist Quebec government of the time proposed a Charter of Secularism. The identitarian left, allied with political Islam, has added its poisonous voice to the chorus of Quebec bashers and haters. The propaganda offensive is overwhelming. But resistance is strong too.

The following are three examples of articles which have appeared recently in the English-language media and which continue this ignoble tradition of contempt for the Québécois.

Slander and Misconceptions in The Guardian

Published in the Guardian (UK) on 2018-07-12, Martin Patriquin asks the extremely loaded question How did Quebec’s nationalist movement become so white? in an article which is so tendentious that it would take dozens of pages to refute all of its deliberate misconceptions and slanderous implications. Patriquin trots out the old chestnut of Jacques Parizeau’s alleged racism, something I deconstructed in a previous blog, and claims that Parizeau initiated a “drift into ethnic nationalism” culminating in the Quebec Charter of Secularism proposed in 2013 (and which Patriquin incorrectly calls the “Quebec values charter”). Patriquin thus indulges in the same dishonest ploy used by the enemies of secularism: deliberately conflating religion with race and ethnicity. He even claims that that Charter was “designed to pit multicultural Montreal against the rest of the province” and accuses the PQ of promoting “scorched earth nationalism!” Huh? What the hell has Patriquin been smoking? He refuses to make the necessary distinction between multiculturalism (a divisive anti-secular ideology unpopular in Quebec) and cultural diversity (a fact of life welcomed by Quebeckers).

Patriquin thus indulges in the same dishonest ploy used by the enemies of secularism: deliberately conflating religion with race and ethnicity.

Patriquin complains about “oodles of crucifixes dotting Quebec’s landscape.” Apparently he is living in 1950, or perhaps 1850. Arguably Patriquin’s worst comment is his assertion that “the PQ’s current leader [Jean-François Lisée] echoes the sentiments of America’s 45^th president.” This is the sort of denigration we could expect from Justin Trudeau, and indeed did get a few years ago, shortly after Trudeau was elected.

Patriquin would like us to believe that the Quebec independence movement has lost steam because it is “so white” and has failed to attract new blood, in particular immigrants. But he ignores several major reasons why the main independentist party, the Parti québécois (PQ) has dropped in popularity: (1) its very success, in particular the success of Bill 101, which offers some protection to the French language and thus makes independence appear less necessary; (2) the competition of a new and regressive (i.e. Islamophilic) leftist and ostensibly independantist party, Québec Solidaire (QS), which has split the independentist vote by sapping the PQ of its left-wing; and (3) Ideologues like Patriquin himself (and QS) who have done considerable damage poisoning the waters of political discourse with their intolerant attitude towards nationalism.

Innuendo in Quillette

Commenting on the recent controversy surrounding the play SLĀV which was cancelled by the Montreal Jazz Festival over concerns of so-called cultural appropriation, Dan Delmar misses the point with his Quillette article of 2018-08-14, The Furore Over a Quebec Theatre Production Has Missed the Point. After an introductory nod to the progressive nature of Quebec politics, the article quickly descends into the typical Quebec-bashing rhetoric which associates Quebec nationalism with xenophobia. Like Patriquin, Delmar laments that Quebec is not enamoured of multiculturalism. More on that later.

Like Patriquin, Delmar laments that Quebec is not enamoured of multiculturalism.

Delmar sinks even lower by rehashing the old slanderous idea of a parallel between Quebec nationalists and resentful white Confederates in the Deep South after the American Civil War. He even accuses Québécois of having a “persecution complex.” Given that denigration of Quebeckers is an ongoing, ever-present phenomenon to which Delmar himself is contributing, his admonishments are hypocritical. Delmar claims that Quebeckers have a “blind spot” when it comes to the race question, but it is Delmar who is blind, expecting Quebec to follow the cultural norms of the USA where the race issue is distorted by the horrific history of slavery in that country, whereas Quebec’s history is completely different. Delmar needs to learn that Quebec is not USA-North.

Ignorance and Racism in the Washington Post

The two examples above are bad enough, but the Grand Prize for Quebec-bashing goes to J. J. McCullough for his diatribe Maxime Bernier’s rebellion comes from the right to upend Canadian politics in the Washington Post on 2018-08-23. Bernier recently issued a series of tweets criticizing Justin Trudeau’s cult-like obsession with the buzzword “diversity” and his “extreme multiculturalism” (which I have discussed briefly in a previous blog). Like Patriquin and Delmar, McCullough cannot abide criticism of multiculturalism.

It gets worse. McCullough goes completely off the rails when he writes:

Bernier is a uniquely flawed vehicle for this message. As a Quebecker, he is an ambassador of a province whose French chauvinism represents the most striking refusal of any Canadian community to conform to the norms of the country’s English majority. A thickly accented French Canadian who complains about “people who refuse to integrate into our society and want to live apart in their ghetto” inevitably opens himself to charges of hypocrisy, […]”

Is it possible that McCullough could be so astoundingly ignorant that he does not even know that Canada has two official languages, and that French is one of them?

Is it possible that McCullough could be so astoundingly ignorant that he does not even know that Canada has two official languages, and that French is one of them? On what basis does McCullough assume that Bernier or any other Francophone Québécois has some obligation to “conform to the norms of the country’s English majority?” If Bernier’s bilingualism is mitigated by a less than perfect command of the English language, in what way does that invalidate his opinion? McCullough’s use of the expression “French chauvinism” is hypocrisy of the most extreme order, given his blatant English chauvinism and ethnocentrism. Comfortable in his ignorance, he reduces Anglophone culture to a monoculture to which all must slavishly conform.

A Common Thread

There is a common thread running through all three articles: a condemnation of the Québécois for not supporting multiculturalism. The three authors blather on about multiculturalism, blissfully ignorant of valid critiques of that ideology which promotes ghettoization and impedes the integration of immigrants.

Racism is a widespread phenomenon and probably exists in all societies, including Quebec. But if the three authors discussed above were truly concerned about that issue, they would have addressed the very problematic nature of Canadian multiculturalism which is not a panacea for racism—as some ideologues maintain—but is in reality a close cousin of racism. Multiculturalism is not a synonym for cultural diversity but rather one way of managing such diversity, and not a very good one at that. Secularism is a different way, a far superior alternative.

The problems with multiculturalism are well known. Already a quarter century ago, Neil Bissoondath gave us a useful critique: Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada. Maryam Namazie, Kenan Malik, Trevor Phillips and others have criticized it extensively. But Patriquin, Delmar and McCullough ignore the obvious fact that multiculturalism has become an ideology promoting cultural relativism which should be rejected. This ideology remains a sacred cow in Canada outside Quebec for various reasons, one being that it is a convenient excuse for bigotry against the Québécois who, less naïve, less monarchist and more (small-r) republican than most Canadians, retain a healthy scepticism with respect to it.

Summing Up

Trashing Quebec and Quebec nationalists has the important function of denigrating both secularism and national sovereignty, both of which are necessary for democracy and both of which are under attack from Islamists, neoliberals and their multiculturalist allies. Whatever the intentions of the three authors may be, they objectively promote that reactionary programme.

In fact, I find the expression “Quebec-bashing” a bit too mild. I hesitate to use the term “racism” because that epithet has been so over-used and abused by regressive pseudo-leftists—and in particular by Quebec-bashers. But if the shoe fits… The degree of contempt often found in writings such as those discussed above sometimes reaches the level of racism; that is the case with McCullough in my opinion. Here I am using the term racism in the more general sense of ethnic bigotry as explained in a previous blog. By recycling age-old Anglo-bigotry, Patriquin, Delmar and McCullough have done their part to poison political debate within Canada and without, while displaying their ignorance of the salient issues.

Next blog: Les extrêmes se touchent : Twitter censure une caricature de Charb

Banning Face-Coverings is Both Necessary and Beneficial

A Response to Stephen Evans of the NSS

2018-08-10

My response to an article in the Huffington Post UK in which Stephen Evans, Chief Executive of the National Secular Society, opposes the face-covering ban recently adopted by Denmark.

Sommaire en français Ma réponse à un texte, publié dans le Huffington Post UK, dans lequel Stephen Evans, de la National Secular Society s’oppose à l’interdiction des couvre-visage récemment adoptée par le Danemark.

In an article published in the Huffington Post UK, Stephen Evans discusses the recent decision by the Danish government to ban face-coverings in public and asks the question “Do Burqa Bans Do More Harm Than Good?” He immediately answers it in the affirmative and then goes on to attempt to defend that conclusion.

First, the good news: Mr. Evans recognizes that accusations of racism directed against those who express concern over the growing influence of Islam are unacceptable. He also recognizes that “The right to manifest your beliefs isn’t absolute” because it is limited by the rights of others. Finally, he promotes “moving away from the laissez-faire approach of multiculturalism which has served to empower patriarchal community leaders; foster segregation; erode equality and freedom of speech; and undermine the principle of one law for all.” Excellent!

Now the bad news: Mr. Evans proceeds to take a position practically indistinguishable from that of radical multiculturalists and repeats several of their specious pseudo-arguments, while failing to recognize how wearing the Islamic veil, especially the full veil, compromises the rights of others in some contexts.

For example, he opines that “Surely such bans risk further alienating women already on the margins of mainstream society?” No, on the contrary, for those women who are pressured into wearing the veil by family or their religious community, such bans are liberating, giving them an excellent means of resisting that pressure. A failure to ban means abandoning them to their fate. As for those who choose to wear the veil, especially the full veil, completely of their own volition, such women have chosen to align themselves with the proselytizing religious fanatics who campaign to make the veil ubiquitous. That campaign must be resisted, not accommodated.

To say that bans on face-coverings discriminate against Muslim women is like saying that speed limits discriminate against those who drive fast cars, or that gun control legislation discriminates against those who use unregistered firearms. For one thing, Muslim women in general do not willingly adopt such accoutrements, but only the most fanatical and fundamentalist ones. Furthermore, speeders, unregistered gun users and niqab-wearers (i.e. who choose to wear it) are self-selecting; their behaviour makes them inevitable targets for legislation necessary to protect the public.

Worse, Mr. Evans even advances the preposterous symmetry argument, alleging that bans are somehow equivalent to imposing the veil, and asking “Should the state be playing that game, too?” Please, this is not a game. The situation is deadly serious. The false symmetry between imposing and banning is a cruel insult to all those women, in countries dominated by Muslim laws and mores, who have been harassed, detained, imprisoned, had acid thrown in their faces, or worse because they dared to defy the degrading obligation to wear the veil. There is simply no comparison with veil bans in countries such as France or Denmark.

I salute the courage and decisiveness of the Danish government. Their ban applies to all public places, a strong measure indeed. I personally would prefer a somewhat lesser measure, i.e. a ban on face-coverings in public services, applying to both public servants on duty and to users of those services. However the Danish solution is infinitely preferable to the complacency promoted by its critics.

The Danish law does not address the important issue of religious symbols other than face-coverings; e.g. Christian crucifixes, Islamic hijabs, Sikh turbans, etc. They should be banned for public servants on duty in order to protect the freedom of conscience of the general public. For example, allowing a police officer to wear a hijab or a visible crucifix while on duty is completely unacceptable, a gross violation of secularism and of the freedom of conscience of the public which has a right to a police service presenting a neutral image. Freedom of religion does not include the privilege of displaying partisan politico-religious advertising while one is on the job, working as a public employee.

Finally, at the end of his article, Mr. Evans finally admits, rather grudgingly it would appear, that there will “be some circumstances where a wearer should be expected to show their face.” He mentions security, identification and communication issues as possible justifications. These three criteria are certainly valid reasons to require showing the face, but they are not the most significant reasons why the Islamic full veil must be resisted. The issues of human dignity and women’s rights are more important.

The niqab and burqa are first and foremost propaganda tools, flags of an international extreme right-wing politico-religious movement which uses the veil as one major tool to spread its influence anywhere and everywhere it can. Islamists use veiled women just as dogs use their urine, to mark their territory. The niqab and burqa are also emblems, both practical and theoretical, of the degradation and enslavement of women; they constitute what are arguably the most egregious symbols of misogyny known to humanity. They are symbols of rape culture – holding women responsible for men’s libido. They express unequivocably that the wearer is chattel belonging to her husband, father or other male relative, and they similarly express the idea that any woman who does not wear the veil is basically a slut whose failure to cover herself means that she is available and easy.

Here in Quebec, the provincial government recently passed a law, the infamous Bill 62, which does almost exactly what Mr. Evans suggests, banning face-coverings in public services but allowing major exceptions. In practice, Bill 62’s ban only applies if one or more of those three criteria – security, identification and communication – can be shown to apply. All secularists here in Quebec, including the organization Atheist Freethinkers (LPA-AFT) which I represent, opposed the Bill because of this weakness, because it fails to recognize the key issues of human dignity and women’s rights, and because it does not even address the question of other religious symbols worn by public servants.

And yet, although totally inadequate, even Bill 62 met with ferocious opposition from Islamists and their radical multiculturalist allies, who claimed that it violated the rights of Muslim women, using specious arguments very similar to those put forward by Mr. Evans. The Bill was even challenged in court by the National Council for Canadian Muslims, shamefully supported by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who succeeded in having the ban suspended.

If we want to address the very real dangers which political Islam represents, we will need far more than the weak legislation proposed by Quebec and the irresponsible complacency shown by Mr. Evans and many others. Individuals and organisations who consider themselves secularist must stop pandering to fundamentalism. They must support a ban on all visible religious symbols worn by public servants while on duty. They must also support banning face-coverings in public services as well, including users too, not just employees. Then, and only then, will they have the credibility to criticize Denmark’s ban on face-coverings everywhere in public.

Next blog: The Identitarian Left

Banning Religious Symbols: When & Where?

2018-06-03

With the recent decision of the Danish government, the question of bans on religious symbols and face-coverings is once again in the news. In this blog I display a table indicating the circumstances in which, in my opinion, such bans are justified.

Sommaire en français Vu la récente décision du gouvernement danois, la question des interdictions des signes religieux et des couvre-visage revient dans l’actualité. Dans le présent blogue, j’affiche un tableau où j’indique les circumstances dans lesquelles de telles prohibitions seraient, à mon avis, justifiées.

Just days ago (2018-05-31) the government of Denmark banned face-coverings in public. The ban will go into effect on August 1^st. I salute the courage of the Danish government. This is a strong and wide-sweeping measure, as it applies in public spaces, not just in public services. However, some constraints on these ambulatory prisons for women must be implemented. They should at least be banned in public services (as Quebec’s Bill 62 claims to do, but in fact fails because of easy exemptions).

The Danish approach is certainly preferable to the complacency and the crass illogic of the Canadian government which not only permits religious symbols everywhere, even in the RCMP, before the courts and in state ceremonies, but in addition even celebrates them!

The ban does not violate freedom of religion. It does not prevent anyone from practising their religion. On the contrary, it prevents one form of proselytism by fanatics with a political agenda. It does not matter whether the person wearing such face-covering does so willingly or is forced by others to do so; in the case of the niqab, either way it an expression of politico-religious fanaticism.

As regards the general question of the circumstances in which bans should or should not be applied, the table below represents my personal opinion. Reasonable people may disagree on the details. However, it is certainly not reasonable to oppose all bans on face-coverings or religious symbols, in any and all circumstances. To allow them everywhere is literally insane. Would you trust a cop wearing a large crucifix on his/her chest or wearing a niqab?

On such bans in general, see: Restrictions on Face-Coverings & Religious Symbols.

Circumstance	Ostentatious Religious (and Political) Symbols in General	Partial face-coverings, e.g. chador*	Face-coverings (which may or may not be religious symbols)
Public servants having coercive power (police, judges, prison guards), while on duty	Ban	Ban	Ban
Public servants in general, while on duty	Ban	Ban	Ban
Users of public services	No ban	No ban	Ban
Private individuals circulating in public	No ban	No ban	Maybe ban
Driver of motor vehicle	Ban if vision is compromised	Ban	Ban

* Note: I have put the chador (tchador in French) into a category by itself because it is more restrictive than the hijab (leaving less of the face visible) while being less restrictive than the niqab or burqa. The chador is, so to speak, the Iranian adaptation of the niqab or burqa.

Next blog: In Praise of Cultural Appropriation

Screw the Monarchy!
Vivent les patriotes !

2018-05-21

The double significance of this holiday, “Victoria Day” or “Journée nationale des patriotes.”

Sommaire en français Aujourd’hui, c’est à la fois la « Fête de la Reine » et « Journée nationale des patriotes ».

Today is a legal holiday in Canada, both federally and in most provinces and territories. In most places it is called “Victoria Day” or, more colloquially, the queen’s birthday, in honour of the birthday of Queen Victoria. In other words, it is a celebration of the monarchy, that antiquated institution which is ridiculous enough in Great Britain, but even more ridiculous in former colonies such as Canada, because it means that Canada’s head of state is a foreigner!

Patriots’ Flag of Lower Canada,
used from 1832 to 1838.

But here in Quebec, things are done a little differently, fortunately. Here, this late-May holiday is officially named “Journée nationale des patriotes” or “National Patriots’ Day” in honour of the patriots of 1837-1838 who fought for democracy, freedom and national recognition for Lower Canada (now Quebec). Their fight for reform led to a number of armed confrontations with British colonial forces and inspired a similar movement in Upper Canada (now Ontario). Several of those involved ended in exile, while others paid with their lives and were hanged.

Lately we have been inundated with news (i.e. propaganda) about the British royal family, what with the recent marriage of a certain Harry with somebody. This led me to make the following Facebook posting:

Screw the monarchy. I do not give a sweet flying fuck about the goddamn royal wedding. Screw the media for promoting it so stupidly.

…which generated quite a few likes among my friends. One Polish friend observed:

I support your opinion, David. For ages they are parasites identically as a clergy of all religions.

…to which I replied:

Yes, and the monarchy is a religious institution, founded on the principle of “divine right”—the monarch owes his or her title to “the grace of God.” It would be difficult to be more arrogant than that.

Local Montreal media published several good commentaries on this orgy of super-star worship. For example, Antoine Robitaille, in an article published Saturday (May 19^th) entitled Pourquoi la monarchie m’énerve (“Why the Monarchy Annoys Me”), observes:

The monarchy and royal families continue to fascinate us. The members of these dynasties are as famous as film stars, perhaps even moreso. This is because we are bewitched by the super-rich. Perhaps even more interesting is the anachronistic aspect which links the present to the nation’s distant past. Nevertheless, the monarchy represents an infantile stage of politics. First and foremost because it is so simple: one person rules, that’s it. This person’s children will take over eventually. Hidden beneath all the glitz and glitter, politics in all its aspects—debate, division, conflict—is obscured. Thus, we tend to be spontaneously monarchist with children. The stories which captivate them often involve kings, princesses and princes.

In another article published the same day, Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay considers the cost, both material and symbolic, of this monarchistic nonsense:

All this pomp and pageantry illustrates one thing: that the monarchy as an institution is on life support. Its only remaining option to assure its survival in people’s hearts and minds is to project a cool and fashionable image.[…]

Everyone agrees: royal power today is essentially symbolic and decides absolutely nothing. So be it. But this is an admission that we pay the lifetime salary of governors-general, amounting to close to $300,000 annually, not to mention their 160 employees, including three photographers and four chauffeurs, for no reason whatsoever. […]

But the monetary cost of these positions is not the principal problem. Even if all of them were unpaid volunteers, even if they somehow earned revenue for the state, their positions should nevertheless be abolished. Symbols have meanings. Our head of state is officially Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. She follows us everywhere, on all our coins. Our members of parliament must swear allegiance to her and must declare that their decisions and actions are guided by an unelected person who holds power, for life, for strictly hereditary reasons […]

All these positions being symbolic, they nevertheless constitute a living reminder that we are still subjects of the queen. […] this backward old institution, which even the most magnificent marriage cannot rescue from irrelevancy, should be consigned to oblivion.

To conclude, two days before the holiday Monday which, in English Canada, is known as Victoria Day, I prefer to wish you an excellent National Patriots’ Day. You remember, right? The patriots who were hung for treason against the British crown? I remember.

Finally, in an article from two years ago, Les patriotes : un devoir de mémoire (“The Patriots: A Duty to Remember”), Joseph Facal offers a brief reminder of the historical context:

The patriots were certainly poorly armed, lacking in experienced military leadership, with no support from the United States, with no clear strategy, and divided between radicals and moderates. However, well-armed, ultraloyalist, paramilitary organizations, tolerated by the British authorities, were determined to kill in the bud any plans for an independent republic of Lower Canada. […]

Was this merely an “ethnic” conflict between French and English? Certainly there were cultural and linguistic animosities. However several anglophones, especially those from an Irish background, were members of the patriot camp and fought against British imperialism. Several francophones, on the other hand, had advantageous social positions and supported the status quo controlled by London.

The patriots fought not only for an independent republic, but also had demands concerning universal suffrage, free education, the death penalty, equality of rights and others. They were inspired by the great principles of the century of Enlightenment and by other emancipation movements on the American continent.

In conclusion, the best way to celebrate this queen’s birthday, 21 May 2018, is to promote abolition of the monarchy and to honour those who fought for freedom and against the monarchy. Joyeuse Fête des Patriotes !

Next blog: Laïcité, législation et gouvernement au Québec

Fairweather Secularists

2018-05-01

In this blog I present the concept of a fairweather secularist, a person who supports only the easiest, non-controversial secular measures, but weasels out on more challenging issues.

Sommaire en français Dans ce blogue je présente le concept d’un prétendu partisan du sécularisme qui abandonne ses principes dès que l’opposition devient un peu plus corsée ou que la question exige un peu d’analyse ou de réflexion. Comme un ami des beaux jours, il disparaît dès que les difficultés se pointent.

We are all familiar with the concept of a fairweather friend: a person who is a friend in good times, but disappears in bad times, a person “who supports others only when it is easy and convenient to do so.” (Dictionary.com)

I define a fairweather secularist as a person who claims to support secularism, but does so only when it is easy to do so, when the issue involved in uncontroversial. But when that issue is more challenging and requires some analysis in order to understand it fully, or when there is strong opposition and the opponents of secularism start slinging mud, the fairweather secularist goes silent and disappears. Or worse: sometimes he or she joins the mud-slingers!

Two examples to illustrate:

Everybody knows that article 296 (“Blasphemous Libel”) of the Criminal Code of Canada has got to go. It is a ridiculous, antiquated law which criminalizes so-called “blasphemy” without even defining the term. Its continued existence in Canadian law can be used by various theocracies as an excuse to justify their repressive legislation against blasphemy or offending religious sensibilities. And yet, many self-styled secularists who denounce article 296 fall silent—or worse, applaud!—when Parliament adopts motion M-103, condemning so-called “Islamophobia.” It is obvious that this motion is a threat to freedom of expression and a first step towards the recriminalization of blasphemy, except that in this case emphasis is placed on one particular religion. The motion is not only incompatible with secularism, it does not even respect religious neutrality which is a weaker concept than secularism. But we who oppose M-103 have a serious uphill battle, because Islamofascists (few in number but very vocal) and their anti-secular allies and dupes (very numerous and very vocal!) throw out a barrage of specious but severe accusations in order to vilify us. The weather in this case is very bad.
All secularists recognize that the crucifix which hangs in Salon bleu of the National Assembly in Quebec City has got to go. It commemorates an old alliance, established in the 1930s, between the right-wing provincial government of the time and the Catholic Church. It is an enormous symbolic privilege given to one particular religion: Christianity. And yet, many self-styled secularists who denounce that crucifix’s presence in the Quebec legislature fall silent—or worse, applaud the decision!—when a federal court rules that a fundamentalist Muslim woman may wear a niqab at her citizenship ceremony. Once again, we have an enormous symbolic privilege given to one particular religion: this time Islam, and not just any Islam, but the most extreme, aggressive and politicized version of that religion. Once again, the weather is very bad, so fairweather secularists are cowed into silence, terrified of being accused of “Islamophobia” or “racism” or whatever.

Cowardice, hypocrisy and intellectual sloth are the essential characteristics of the fairweather secularist.

Fairweather secularism is the first dismal level in a spectrum of ways in which people capitulate to religious privilege and obscurantism. From there, it is only a matter of degree separating these false friends of secularism from deeper levels of capitulation, leading eventually to some form of alliance with religion. And in the current political context, the religion which they mostly enable is usually Islam because it is currently the most fashionable and its fundamentalist variant is the most aggressive.

Next blog: Screw the Monarchy! Vivent les patriotes !

Religious Symbols and the Montreal Police

Cultural relativists are on the warpath again.

2018-04-13

Once again, the airheads who promote cultural relativism and religious privilege are on the warpath, trying to impose religious symbols in public services, this time in the Montreal police force.

Sommaire en français Encore une fois, les écervelés du relativisme culturel et du privilège religieux partent en guerre dans le but d’imposer des symboles religieux dans les services publics, cette fois-ci dans la police de Montréal.

Once again, conformism and fashionable nonsense are winning out over common sense. Some doofus on Montreal City Council, someone obviously with more time than brains, came up with the brilliant idea of having the Montreal Police force allow officers to wear religious symbols such as Islamic hijabs and Sikh turbans while on duty. And a lot of other doofuses (doofi?) — the usual suspects, including Prime Minister Trudeau, Premier Couillard and Mayor Plante — are jumping on the bandwagon, either agreeing completely or at least declaring their openness to the idea.

To consider this idea, and to keep it simple, let us set aside most of the issues which such an idea raises. Forget for now the fact that the hijab is a flag of an international extreme right-wing political movement, as well as a symbol of that movement’s abysmal misogyny, a symbol of rape culture, and a marker identifying the woman wearing it as “taken,” i.e. as the property of her family and religious community.

Let us also set aside the fact that only the most pious, fundamentalist or even extremist Sikh men would bother to wear the turban which is a marker indicating that their religion is more important to them than anything else in their lifes.

Let us also set aside the fact that such unnecessary religious attire can be a very real impediment to a police officer’s work, interfering with or completely preventing the wearing of a protective helmet or a gas mask, and, in the case of the hijab compromising the person’s peripheral vision.

Finally, let us set aside the very real problem of how the police officer’s religious symbol may interfere with their work because of how it is perceived by the public. Police officers wear a uniform for a reason: because it is, well, uniform, that is, in order to present a neutral appearance. Imagine the predicament of a young women who is being seriously harassed by her Muslim father because she refuses to wear the hijab; how will she feel if she calls the police and a hijabi officer shows up? Or imagine the predicament of a man attacked by homophobes who, when the police arrive, finds that one or more officers are wearing symbols associated with a highly homophobic religion. Or consider the plight of a woman beaten by her husband who appeals to the police for help but finds that several officers are wearing symbols of a very misogynistic religion.

Let us leave all that aside and consider one core issue. On what basis can one justify granting such a privilege to the Muslim and Sikh religions? Are we supposed to accept a police officer who wears a giant Christian cross on his/her chest while on duty? How about a Pastfarian who wears a collander or a bowl of spaghetti on his/her head? Or a Raelian who wears only a G-string to symbolize that cult’s sex-positive beliefs? Or a Scientologist who wears a symbol of that religion?

Should we also accept officers wearing swastikas on their uniforms? Ah, but that is a political ideology, not a religion, you protest. Bullshit, all religions are potentially political, and indeed they become highly politicized if and when their symbols are worn by an agent endowed with the coercive power of the state and the mandate to use it. An Islamic hijab, a Sikh turban, a Christian crucifix or any other religious symbol becomes a political symbol (if it was not obviously one already) as soon as it is displayed by an agent of the state while on duty.

The solution is simple. A uniform must be uniform. No modification to the uniform is acceptable unless it responds to a real, objective need, such as body size, sex, handicap, health condition, etc. A person’s religious affiliation is not an acceptable excuse to provide an accommodation because it does not represent any objective need; in other words, there is nothing real to be accommodated.

Anyone who attaches greater importance to their religion than to their duties as a police officer (or in other position as employee of the state), even while on duty, is unfit for the job. All the person has to do is to wear the standard uniform while on duty. When off duty, they can wear whatever they want.

Tag: secularism