Pie Palace

I was skimming through OpenParliament.ca, when I ran across a discussion of bill C-4, (aka “An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts” or “Sébastien’s Law”). For the uninitiated: it’s the Conservative push to reform the young offender act.

The thing that got me about it was Bloc MP Serge Ménard‘s comments. That dude has something to say. He starts by pointing out that Quebec has had a youth crime rate half that of the rest of Canada, and then he goes on to describe how QC applies “the right measure at the right time.” As far as I can tell, it involves parents, psychologists, and specially trained judges. After saying his bit, he goes on to outline exactly the parts of bill C-4 that suck. With quotes. The only way this guy could be more excellent is if he spoke with footnotes and had X-ray vision.

The exchange between Ménard and Conservative Ed Fast is interesting. Ménard makes an argument based on experience, describing what has worked well in Quebec for the last 25 years. Ed Fast makes an argument based on aspirations – saying how their changes are intended to behave, but without any apparent evidence. Even the Liberals and NDPers (between verbally high-fiving each other) make arguments based on what has been shown to work.

I could draw conclusions about the relative merit of the arguments, but I’ll leave that up to you, dear reader.

For the past few days, Ontario conservatives have been all abluster about the government’s sex ed proposal. The new curriculum has been described as “unconscionable” and “bordering on criminal” by one set of wackos and “the biggest issue facing the Catholic Church in Ontario” by another. So, like any curious 12 year old, I set out to find the offensive bits:

Human Development and Sexual Health
C3.3 describe how visible differences (e.g., skin, hair, and eye colour, facial features, body size and shape, physical aids or different physical abilities, clothing, possessions) and invisible differences (e.g., learning abilities, skills and talents, personal or cultural values and beliefs, gender identity, sexual orientation, family background, personal preferences, allergies and sensitivities) make each person unique, and identify ways of showing respect for differences in others

Teacher prompt: “Sometimes we are different in ways you can see. Sometimes we are different in ways you cannot see – such as how we learn, what we think, and what we are able to do. Give me some examples of things that make each person unique.”

Student: “We all come from different families. Some students live with two parents. Some live with one parent. Some have two mothers or two fathers. Some live with grandparents or with caregivers. We may come from different cultures. We also have different talents and abilities and different things that we find difficult to do.”

Teacher: “How can you be a role model and show respect for differences in other people?”

Student: “I can include others in what I am doing, invite them to join a group, be willing to be a partner with anyone for an activity, and be willing to learn about others.”

(Excerpted from the original proposal on the Government of Ontario’s website and mirrored here)

That’s it? Saying that some kids have two moms is “bordering on criminal”? According to the nutbars cited above: “To cause confusion in a young child’s mind about being male or female is evil.” O rly?

This argument strikes me as thinly veiled homophobia.

Instead of overt queer-bashing, the “family values” crowd is now saying that they want to hide homosexuality from their kids. Their homophobia is suddenly a parental right. They don’t want to openly dis queers, they just want to pretend that gays don’t exist. One gentleman from the Sault is quoted as saying “a child is taught to comply, answer the right questions in school, and at home he’s taught this is not right behaviour, [...] Is that fair to the kids?” That’s right. Teaching kids that homosexuality exists is unfair to them. Presumably because they’ll have to rectify their parents’ bigotry with society’s openness.

I’d like to say that this issue does matter. But it does. Some of the “family values” types will have gay kids. And those kids are going to have a rough time growing up. I can’t help but think that a brief admission that homosexuality is okay in Grade 3 might save those kids a measure of hurt growing up.

(Edit: Changed the title)

Quebec is doing what it can to prevent women from wearing niqabs (face covering garments that leave only the eyes exposed). The Quebec Immigration Department has booted two recent immigrants out of French-language classes for covering their faces. At the same time the government has introduced Bill 94, which would prevent provincial employees from wearing niqabs and limit how much effort public employees would need to put into accommodating veil-wearers.

Why has Quebec suddenly decided that niqabs are bad? To “protect equality between women and men”¹ and to “stress the values that unite [Quebecers]“²

In other words:

• Quebec has decided to bar women from language training to protect their equality with men.
• Quebec is targeting immigrants and minorities to promote inclusiveness.

I agree with the premise that niqabs are ambulatory prisons that can be used to drive a wedge between women and society.

But saying “you musn’t wear a niqab” is pretty close to saying “you must wear a niqab.” It removes a woman’s right to self determination. In both cases she’s not quite as equal as the man who gets to choose his own duds.

If I were to draft my own Bill 94, it would look something like:

1. The only time someone’s face needs to be shown is when they are being authenticated. Women will have to show their faces to bankers, police, doctors, and pharmacists. If a woman can complete her studies with her face covered, then the only time she need show her face at a school is when she’s taking a test or examination.
2. Make school uniforms mandatory. Adults have already formed habits and ingrained behaviours that many Quebecers find distasteful. Let them be and concentrate on the next generation. If niqabs are as onerous as their critics suggest, children should jump at the freedom afforded by their uniforms.

“Reasonable accommodation” is a two way street: immigrants will have to adjust to showing their face when necessary and Quebecers will have to adjust to seeing people with different customs. It’s reasonable to expect immigrants to respect our laws and other codified norms, but we can’t expect them to entirely discard their native culture. Similarly, recent immigrants should be able to expect that they will be treated in the same manner as other citizens, as a society we realize that their history is part of who they are and we accept that. Even if have decided we don’t like its origins.

Image by leeno.

1. That’s according to Chrstiane Pelchat, president of the Quebec Council on the Status of Women. (back)
2. So says Jean Charest. (back)