Tag: CAQ

Categories
News

Immigration: a pass or fail test

Immigrants will have to pass a values test in order to settle in Quebec.

The Québec government announced last October that immigrants who want to settle in Quebec will have to pass a ‘values test’ as of Jan. 1, 2020.

According to the Official Gazette of Québec, the official publication of the Québec government, the test will serve as part of Québec’s selection process. It must be passed within a two-year period before applicants can apply for permanent residency.

The values tests for new immigrants was one of the electoral promises made by the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) during their 2018 provincial election campaign, along with a mandatory French proficiency exam.

During a press conference, Quebec’s immigration minister, Simon Jolin-Barrette, shared an example of what the questions will be like: “Since March 27, 2019, Bill 21, the secularism of the state, says every new police officer cannot wear religious symbols on the job. True or false?”

The test will be made up of 20 questions covering topics like francophone culture and Québec democracy, among others. The questions will be chosen at random from a bank of questions. “It will never be the same evaluation,” said Jolin-Barrette.

Applicants are required to get a score of 75 per cent or more for it to be successful. Only after passing the test will applicants receive a certificate selection, allowing them to apply for permanent residency with the federal government.

If the applicant fails the initial test, they must wait a minimum of two weeks before being allowed to retake the test. If the applicant fails a second time, they will have to follow a course offered by the government to learn about the province’s values. Should the applicant fail a third time, they will have to restart the process from the beginning.

“It’s important, before deciding to come to Quebec, to know that if you expect to be in a job in a position of authority, you will not have the right to wear religious signs,” Legault told reporters during a scrum. “So, I think it’s important that you understand the values of where you want to live.”

International students who wish to settle and work in Québec after graduating are given a choice: they can either attend a course, or take the exam. The course is offered by the Québec government and upon completion, students will receive a learning attestation. Temporary workers will be offered the same option.

New economic class immigrants must take the test, with exemptions for children and applicants who have a medical condition preventing them from taking the test. Immigrants who are coming as refugees or through family reunification are also exempt.

“I think it’s normal that immigrants who arrive in Quebec and enjoy all of its advantages have to respect its values,” said Zachary Lumbroso, an international student studying Journalism at Concordia University.

Many seem to think that the idea behind the test is good because it is important to know about the culture and the values of the places you plan on living in. However, most are also under the impression that the test will be a waste of time.

“I don’t mind learning about Québec values,” said Piyush Gulia, a second year international student studying architectural sciences at Montreal Technical College. “I just think that having to do a test is a bit silly, it’s a waste of time honestly.”

People have also been skeptical about how honest the applicants will be when answering the questions.

“Anyone with some common sense can pass this test, regardless of whether or not they actually respect the values in question,” said Gulia. “They’ll answer what the government wants to hear.”

Despite the uncertainty and skepticism, the Québec government is still proceeding with the implementation of the test. The CAQ hopes that it will one day become more than just part of the Québec selection process, and become a part of the permanent residency process, according the Official Gazette of Québec.

 

Graphic by Victoria Blair

Categories
News

Poli Savvy: What’s the CAQ doing with weed and how does it impact you?

If you live under a rock or never toke up, then you might not have heard that the legal age for cannabis consumption will be raised from 18 to 21 on the first day of the new year.

The law will also ban the public consumption of cannabis. I guess that means you won’t be able to enjoy your joint on your way to the nearest munchies. This law is meant to regulate the number of young consumers and their vulnerability to the drug.

Another law that has stirred some controversy is the values test aimed at immigrants heading to the province. Premier François Legault said he thinks “it’s important if somebody wants to come and live in Quebec, to know that, for example, women are equal to men.”

Were you thinking of applying to move here permanently? Well, just make sure you have “aligned values.” But does a government that takes away the right for women to wear a hijab at their place of work believe women are equal to men?

Bill 21 has been heavily criticized for being a blatant form of discrimination, aimed mainly at women. It bans teachers, police officers and judges from wearing religious symbols at work. CBC News reported Prime Minister Trudeau saying the law is “unfair, unequal treatment [and] state-sponsored, systemic oppression.”

What does this mean for Canada? Well, it’s not as though Trudeau was rushing to fix these forms of systemic racism in the country. In fact, the CBC reported one of his priorities “is going to be on responding to [frustrations with the economic challenges], the way we’re going to be working to make life more affordable for all Canadians.” I guess he’s going to be prioritizing the oil and natural gas sector.

Also, if you were hoping your vote towards Canada’s favourite costume boy was for climate action, you have been pranked.

 

Graphic by Victoria Blair

 

 

Categories
News

Speaking out against Bill 21

In a night filled with heartfelt words and personal reflection, World Sikh Organization hosted an open mic in hopes of providing a safe space for those affected by bill 21 to share their experience.

In collaboration with Democratic Engagement Exchange and Punjabi Resilience and Empowerment in Mental Health (PREM), the event, which took place on Oct. 13 evening at Club Insiders anticafé, addressed the importance of social engagement through self-expression, solidarity and political engagement as elections approach.

“I hope the event was able to display the immense impact bill 21 has had on the mental health of religious minorities living in Quebec,” said Steeven Toor, founder and director of PREM.

The event was organized by Toor, who spoke about the importance of community in the face of Bill 21. He emphasized the isolation that the bill has imposed on many members of religious communities in Quebec.

Speakers shared creative projects such as photo essays and songs with the attendees. Political Science student at Concordia University, Mandeep Kaur, spoke about her frustrations. Her choice of wearing a traditional sikh turban empowers her identity but Bill 21 could hinder her pursuit of a career in law. She spoke about the injustice and isolation she feels by simply expressing her beliefs in physical form. “We have to stay together in solidarity. The bill is dividing us.” Kaur said.

A presentation was given by Bao-Vy Nguyen, a field organizer from Democratic Engagement Exchange (DEE), a non-partisan group that provides support and strategy to organizations promoting voter engagement. Nguyen spoke about the importance of voter engagement and gave the audience a few pointers to understanding party policies and tips for voting.

“Mobilization is also about being in touch with communities that are often left out of the conversations. It also starts by bringing awareness and sharing information,” Nguyeen said.

She also stressed the importance of having representation and voting to effect change. “I’m happy that many took away the Punjabi Misinformation guide, it goes to show that people are actually interested, we just need to find more ways to reach out to people and make these resources accessible and inclusive.” The Punjabi Misinformation guides are pamphlets provided by the DEE to show facts and information about the elections and candidates that affect their community.

“I was very happy to see so many folks come and support the event,” Toor said. “I was also glad to see all walks of life in the room and to be able to share space with people from different communities,” Toor said.

 

Photo by Mishkat Hafiz

Categories
News

Dilemma for education students

Photo by Jad Abukasm

The CAQ’s secularism bill would change plans for current students

“The Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) is imposing a belief on me,” said Ikram El Mashoubi, a third-year education student at Concordia who wears a headscarf.

If Bill 21 passes, El Mashoubi would have to give up her scarf to pursue a teaching career in public schools. “We will become second-class citizens just because we choose to practice our religion freely, which I have the right to do,” she said.

“When I first heard the news, I cried my eyes out,” said El Mashoubi. “My life trajectory that I was so happy to follow shifted 90 degrees just like that.”

The CAQ tabled their secularism bill on March 27. The bill is an attempt to achieve religious neutrality in the province by banning religious symbols worn by public workers. This includes teachers, police officers and governmental lawyers.

While the government claims the bill balances community and individual rights, much opposition arose claiming the proposed bill violates rights outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“It is a violation of freedom of religion and a violation of the right against discrimination,” said Azim Hussain, a lawyer specialized in constitutional law.

Premier François Legault said individuals who refuse to abide by the proposed bill can simply change jobs.

“I have given, so far, three years of my life to proudly and rightfully become a licensed teacher,” said El Mashoubi. “I have spent tens of thousands of dollars. I have put my heart, tears, and so much love into this career. I gave so much of myself and my time into teaching.”

“Legault can’t possibly ask me to just look for another job,” El Mashoubi said.

Hussain said the bill lacks legality since the CAQ initially misused the notwithstanding clause, which could be detrimental to the legislation. The notwithstanding clause in theCanadian Constitution is used by both provincial and federal governments to override sections of the charter that they do not agree with for a five-year period.

“There should first be a court process that determines whether the law is constitutional and then the government should decide whether it would invoke the notwithstanding clause,” said Hussain. Instead, the government invoked this clause prior to tabling it.

Concordia political science Professor, James Kelly, whose field of study is the Canadian constitution, said courts have already ruled that the clause can be used in a pre-emptive way.

“[The CAQ is] not acknowledging that it violates rights explicitly, but they are implicitly saying that by invoking the notwithstanding clause,” said Kelly. Once the clause is used, there cannot be constitutional challenges to the bill, but other challenges can be made, such as administrative ones.

The lack of definition regarding religious symbols could be the target of administrative challenges. Minister of Immigration, Diversity and Inclusiveness, Simon Jolin-Barrette, told CTV Montreal that “everyone in Quebec knows what a religious symbol is.” However, Kelly said an administrative challenge would only delay the legislative process.

According to Magida Chatila, a social worker in a Notre-Dame-de-Grâce elementary school, Bill 21 will have many other consequences outside the classroom.

“In francophone schools, there is a huge lack of teachers and professionals, such as psycho-educators and speech therapists,” said Chatila. “This situation is particularly difficult for special classes whose students need special education.”

Some of these students have an academic delay of two years. Other students do not even have a permanent teacher. “Students have been taught by many substitute teachers before someone accepted to take a job,” said Chatila.

As a response to the lack of teachers, some schools have hired personnel without the proper certification to teach. “At the school where I am currently working, around 10 teachers out of the 30 do not have the proper requirements to teach,” said Chatila.

By preventing new teachers like El Mashoubi to work in public schools, Chatila fears that the lack of workforce will only grow. This would be detrimental to students from public schools, she said.

While the CAQ holds a majority of seats in the national assembly, many think there are ways to legally oppose the bill before it passes. Kelly predicts that once all the testimonies pass through Assembly, the bill’s flaws will arise. This is what caused the previous secularism attempts to fail in the past two decades, according to Kelly.

Photo by Jad Abukasm.

Categories
Opinions

Quebec ought to do better

Graphic by @spooky_soda

The government’s plan to cancel 18,000 immigration files is irresponsible

Picture a family of four. The mother is an accomplished university professor, currently finishing her PhD in management and marketing in partnership with various French universities, despite being based elsewhere. Her husband, a qualified software engineer, works for the country’s biggest public company. Their two sons, aged six and 10, are not only healthy, but very sweet and incredibly smart. Like their parents, they both can speak three languages fluently—including French—and the older of the two is currently learning his fourth.

This picture-perfect family happens to be my cousin’s. She lives in Algeria, where yes, her situation is pretty good as of now—but unstable socio-economic conditions in the country and the rise of various militant groups pushed her and her husband to apply for immigration to Canada back in 2012. They are now onto their second attempt, but the CAQ government’s Bill 9 might get in the way of their Canadian dream.

On Feb. 7, the Quebec government announced that in order to pass its upcoming immigration bill, commonly referred to as Bill 9, it would proceed to cancel all 18,000 Skilled Worker Program applications currently pending for treatment and approval by the province’s Ministry of Immigration, Diversity and Inclusion (MIDI), according to Le Devoir. The announcement was made nearly 10 days after Premier François Legault promised those files would be duly taken care of before his party would submit its new immigration bill.

Simply put, this measure is irresponsible and thoroughly unfair. Handling those 18,000 documents is part of the government’s duty towards its applicants, and cancelling them in order to promptly pass a more restrictive immigration law can only be seen as a way for the province to wash its hands from the expectations it ought to meet, while jeopardizing the future of thousands of people.

Think about it: behind those 18,000 immigration requests are actual people, spread across the globe, hoping for a better future here in Quebec. Those 18,000 files affect the lives of men, women, children; entire families, or hopeful young adults. In total, these files represent about 50,000 people, as each file represents a family, according to Le Devoir. Some of them—like my cousin and her family—have been waiting for years, hoping not even for an acceptance, but merely a response from our government. According to the CBC, some applications date back to 2005, totaling a wait time of 14 years.

There’s also a lot of money going into this: applying for immigration to Quebec costs around $1,000, which would correspond, in total, to $19 million to reimburse all those applicants—which Immigration Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette promised to do, while also suggesting that applicants re-apply once the new bill has passed, according to Le Devoir and Global News.

This isn’t a small amount; $19 million could be used to take care of much more pressing, important issues. Besides, asking people to simply “re-apply” goes to show that Minister Jolin-Barrette has no idea the burden that immigration bureaucracy entails, and just how much it impacts the lives of the people applying.

However, the issue doesn’t end there. The new proposed bill on immigration, while also reducing the number of immigrants admitted in the province, puts a stronger emphasis on “learning French and learning about democratic values and the Québec values”, as the Bill reads. This resonates with François Legault’s electoral promise to establish a French and “Quebec values” test for immigrants to pass after three years in the province, according to The Globe and Mail. While a French test might be, to a certain extent, understandable in order to maintain the French-speaking character of the province, a test on “Quebec values” can only be seen as xenophobic.

One of our province’s strengths is its welcoming environment and its diversity. Setting up such a restrictive examination would weaken such strengths, while also clearly discriminating against immigrants. Surely all the people born and raised here have some core values they might not agree upon, but those people would never be tested on them the way immigrants would be.

I am not the only one contesting this measure. All three of the main opposition parties of the National Assembly have also expressed their disagreement, according to Le Devoir. Meanwhile, the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association (AQAADI) are also hoping to take this to court, according to the same source.

Our government needs to reconsider its approach to immigration issues, starting with the cancellation of pending immigration requests. The CAQ owes it to the 50,000 applicants it’s letting down, to the current immigrants of Quebec that are only working to better our province like any other citizen, and to the rest of its society.

I can’t help but think of my cousin. She’s brilliant, speaks French fluently, and she and her family have the potential to bring so much to our province. She deserves better from our government.

Graphic by @spooky_soda

Categories
Opinions

Ignoring Islamophobia doesn’t make it go away

Graphic by @spooky_soda

When an ostrich realizes they’re in danger and they can’t run away, they fall to the ground and remain still while laying their head and neck flat on the ground. That way, they can blend in with the colour of the soil and avoid their threat. This is often referred to as the “ostrich approach,” which Collins Dictionary defines as “a person who refuses to face reality or recognize the truth.”

Recently, we saw the Quebec premier, François Legault, doing exactly that. Near the end of January, he ruled out the idea of dedicating a day to anti-Islamophobia, saying, “I don’t think there is Islamophobia in Quebec, so I don’t see why there would be a day devoted to Islamophobia,” according to the Montreal Gazette. The National Council of Canadian Muslims’s (NCCM) Executive Director, Ihsaan Gardee, told Global News, “[…] taking the ostrich approach and putting your head in the sand is not going to solve a problem or make it go away.”

We at The Concordian wholeheartedly agree with the NCCM’s executive director’s statement. Islamophobia is a real and ongoing problem in Quebec. Denying its existence and prevalence is not only wrong, it’s promoting a lie. The Premier later “clarified” his statement by saying that “Islamophobia exists in Quebec […] but not a current of Islamophobia. Quebec is not Islamophobic or racist,” according to the Montreal Gazette.

A spokesperson for Legault later clarified, “there is no trend or culture of Islamophobia in Quebec. Quebecers are open and tolerant and they shall continue to exhibit these qualities.” How does it, in any way, make sense to say that Islamophobia does exist in Quebec, while simultaneously saying there is no “current” or “trend?” Does the government not analyze statistics or facts and figures? Do they not speak to the Muslim community in Quebec, who experience such acts firsthand? Do they not remember the root cause of the Jan. 29 2017 mosque shooting?

In 2018, a year after the Jan. 29 attack, the NCCM had created a proposal to devote the day to anti-Islamophobia. The CAQ spokesperson at the time said the anniversary should instead be dedicated to commemorating the victims’ memories, according to CBC. The Parti Québécois also rejected the proposal by saying the term Islamophobia is “too controversial” and there is already an international day that promotes eliminating racial discrimination, according to the same source.

We at The Concordian find it exhaustingly sad that the NCCM has been rejected twice in trying to promote anti-Islamophobia in Quebec. If the government was truly supportive of its Muslim community, it would have no trouble dedicating one day of the entire year to lend its voice to uplift Muslims and their struggles. The truth is, Quebec has always had a problem with Islam, from the 2013 Quebec Charter of Values that aimed to ban religious symbols and attire in the public sector (like the hijab), to white nationalist groups against Islam like PEGIDA that flourish in the province. And, just recently, Quebec’s Minister for the Status of Women, Isabelle Charest, said the hijab is oppressive. She said, “When a religion dictates clothing […] this is not freedom of choice […] it’s a sign of oppression,” according to the Montreal Gazette. Isn’t the government dictating what a woman can and cannot wear just as oppressive, if not more?

Anti-Muslim sentiments are higher in Quebec than in the rest of Canada, according to a 2018 study published in the Canadian Review of Sociology. CBC reported that the study found that Muslims are the least liked social group amongst Canadians. The study asked Canadians to assign certain groups a score from zero to 100 that demonstrated how much they approved of them and Muslims in Quebec received the lowest score of 56. The study also found that 70 per cent of respondents in Quebec expressed “significant” anti-Muslim sentiment and 57 per cent of Quebec respondents had more negative attitudes towards Muslims than other racial minorities.

The truth is, we can fill up an entire page in this week’s issue of The Concordian with facts and figures demonstrating just how prevalent Islamophobia is in Quebec. Perhaps government officials are putting too much emphasis on the “phobia” part of Islamophobia, when it encompasses more than just a fear of Muslims and Islam. Perhaps they believe Islamophobia only manifests itself in violent attacks, like the Jan. 29 shooting. But we at The Concordian believe Quebec officials, and citizens, need to understand that Islamophobia exists in more ways than just attacks and fear. It is disliking an entire group for what they believe in. It is scoffing at their struggles rather than acknowledging them. It is questioning whether or not they deserve basic human rights. Islamophobia is real and, using the Premier’s words, is a “trend” in our province. Let’s fight against it—but first, let’s acknowledge it instead of taking the ostrich approach.

Graphic by @spooky_soda

Categories
News

Fighting for a greener planet

Photo by Makenzie Lad.

The chilly weather did not stop 50 thousand protestors from demanding stricter laws and regulations against climate change from Quebec Premier François Legault’s government on Nov. 10.

“We want to believe that [Legault] will make the environment a top priority, and we want to make sure his actions will match his words,” said Nathalie Roy, a spokesperson of The Planet Goes to Parliament, the non-profit group that organized the march. “Right now, the picture does not seem coherent.”

The Great Climate March began at 2:30 p.m. at Place des Festivals and ended at the Mordecai Richler gazebo in Mount Royal Park two hours later.

“Ceci n’est pas une pipeline” (“This is not a pipeline.”) Photo by Mackenzie Lad.

Many participants carried placards with slogans such as, “Change the way you consume,” “Climate Justice. Indigenous Sovereignty” and “All together for our planet.” Throughout the march, demonstrators chanted, “There is no planet B” and “Here and now, for the future of our children.”

According to Roy, one catalyst of the march was the heat wave that killed more than 90 people in Quebec over the summer. “The problem we have is that people seem to treat [natural disasters] as isolated phenomena,” said Roy. “Climate change is happening now, and we can no longer remain in denial.”

The Planet Goes to Parliament made three demands of Legault and his administration, including the development of a provincial climate plan in line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 and completely eliminate them by 2050. The organization also called on the government to raise awareness about the current climate emergency and threats to biodiversity.

Additionally, the group demanded the government ban new oil and gas exploration and development projects, and put an end to all direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies.

“We tend to think that changing our lifestyles is going to be hard,” Roy said. “Maybe changing our lifestyles will improve our quality of life—more time and less work.” Roy added that these changes would include an increased use of public transit and reduced work hours.

Patrick Bonin, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Canada who attended the protest, said his role is to make sure citizens are pressuring the Quebec government to do its part to protect the environment. “We still have time to change, but there’s no more time to waste,” he said.

“I’m melting!” says the Earth on one protestor’s hat. Photo by Mackenzie Lad.

Bonin said if the government does not take the issue to heart, people will take matters into their own hands. “If they can’t be responsible,” he said, “we will responsibilize them” through non-violent civil disobedience such as sitting in front of the offices of members of parliament and blocking construction and gas exploration projects.Some of the march’s participants spoke about the importance of attending the march and fighting for an eco-friendly economy. Caroline Beyor said she wants to see real changes in her daily life, including a reduction of plastic and more government-run companies at grocery stores.

“I want to be sure what they’re selling me is safe for our planet,” Beyor said. “I want to rely on the government and not on profit.”

: A man holds a sign reading “D’après nous… le deluge?” (“After us… the flood?”) Photo by Mackenzie Lad.

Beyor also recommended Montrealers stop buying things they do not or rarely use, and consider going vegan.

“Be the change,” she told The Concordian. “Be the example. You can’t change everybody. Do it yourself, and people will follow.”

Photos by Mackenzie Lad.

Categories
Opinions

Francois Legault does not speak for a majority

Graphic by @spooky_soda

How much of a mandate does Legault of the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) party really have?

News media outlets have been clear since the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) won Quebec’s provincial election: they won by a stunning majority. No, no, actually, they “romped to victory,” they won a “commanding majority,” they “surged,” “swept to power” and “stormed to a majority,” according to various sources.

This rhetoric would make a person think the CAQ was elected by an overwhelming majority of Quebecers. Certainly, premier-designate François Legault would have you believe that.

At a press conference held the day after the election, Legault proposed using the notwithstanding clause to force through legislation that would ban public authority figures from wearing religious symbols. He said the “vast majority” of Quebecers agreed with his proposed ban and, therefore, it wasn’t a big deal to use the clause (and besides, Premier Doug Ford already did it in Ontario).

So, Legault wants to disregard a vital aspect of democratic society (the Constitution of Canada), but he cites a foundational democratic concept (that of “the majority”) as giving him the mandate to do so. It seems Legault is only interested in democracy when it suits him.

Besides, a closer look at the election results deflates the idea that Legault represents the will of a majority of Quebecers. The CAQ received approximately 38 per cent of the popular vote. That in itself is not an “absolute” majority, which would require more than 50 per cent of the vote in order to have more votes than the combined opposition.

However, in Canada, we operate by a plurality voting system, sometimes referred to as “first-past-the-post (FPTP),” where a party simply needs to get more votes than any other party to win. What this means is that a majority of the candidates who won seats for the CAQ did not get at least 50 per cent of the vote.

Moreover, voter turnout for the 2018 election was estimated at 63 per cent. There are about six million eligible voters in Quebec; a little over 3.7 million of them came out to vote. This adds up to the CAQ representing 38 per cent of just 63 per cent of eligible voters, so approximately 1.4 million people. Legault speaks for 1.4 million people in a province of more than eight million.

Legault’s majority is an electoral majority, and that’s a weak basis on which to claim one has a mandate to act for a ‘majority of quebecers.’ Pretty much anyone you ask right now agrees that the democratic election process needs reform. Elections keep resulting in situations where a small segment of voters can elect a “majority” government that doesn’t represent the true feelings of most people.

An alternative model to FPTP is proportional representation, which essentially means the number of seats a party gets in the legislature is equivalent to the percentage of the popular vote they received. In Quebec, that would mean the CAQ had 47 seats in the National Assembly, the Liberal Party would have 30, Parti Quebecois 22 and Quebec Solidaire 19.

In a situation like that, if the three opposition parties decided to put their differences aside and oppose the most egregious elements of the CAQ’s agenda, they could. That would be a truer representation of people’s will than the FPTP system.

When contemporary conservative politicians are criticised for their inhuman policies, they often smugly reply that they have the will of the people behind them. We need to remind them of the basic facts of electoral democracy. Rarely does any government under a FPTP system have a real claim to majority representation. If you want us to accept your proposals, you need to argue them on the merits. So, tell me, what are the merits of state harassment of religious minorities?

Graphic by @spooky_soda

 

Categories
Opinions

The religious symbol ban is backwards

Graphic by Ana Bilokin

Ban. Forbid. Prohibit. Most would assume these words are associated with important issues like banning plastic bags, forbidding child marriage or prohibiting smoking in certain areas. Instead, Quebec is once again caught in a useless but ever-present debate about banning religious symbols.

The incoming Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government under François Legault is attempting to follow through on their campaign promise to ban religious symbols for civil servants in positions of authority. This includes preventing teachers, police officers and judges, among others, from wearing the Muslim hijab, the Sikh turban or the Jewish kippah. This isn’t the first time Quebec politicians have tried to forbid people from wearing religious symbols. In fact, it was only a year ago that the provincial government was debating Bill 62, which would have prevented civil servants from covering their faces when accessing public services. Initially, the CAQ said government employees who didn’t comply with the ban would be choosing between having a job and wearing a religious symbol. Following criticism from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and protests from others in Quebec, the CAQ has now stated that they are willing to compromise and only apply the ban to newly hired employees, according to The Globe and Mail. Frankly, this is appalling and downright frustrating.

Our schools and teachers must be diverse in order to reflect reality. When you walk down the streets of Montreal, you inevitably come across diversity. Why should walking down Quebec school hallways be any different? Preventing people from expressing their religious beliefs is oppressive and destructive to society’s progression. Having children taught by teachers who wear the Sikh turban helps to normalize religious diversity. A police officer who wears the hijab can help enforce the idea that your religious beliefs don’t hinder your ability to do your job well.

We at The Concordian wholeheartedly reject this atrocious ban; but more importantly, we reject the rhetoric behind it. While the CAQ and the ban’s supporters insist the ban is solely intended to achieve religious neutrality, it’s important to note where the ban is coming from. Simply put, it’s coming from a place of ignorance and intolerance.

It encourages the idea that people must be one and the same, that diversity and differences weaken our society rather than strengthen it. This is hateful, wrong and offensive to many. This ban is flawed in so many ways, and is hypocritical at its core. When asked if the crucifix in the National Assembly will stay, Legault replied that it’s not a religious symbol but rather part of Quebec’s heritage. “We have a cross on our flag,” he said, according to Global News. “I think that we have to understand our past. In our past we had Protestants, Catholics, they built the values we have in Quebec. It’s part of our history.”

How can a religious symbol—the crucifix—not be religious? It’s clear to us that this ban is based on senseless intolerance rather than actual facts and concrete arguments. It seems the CAQ wants to preserve one faith: Christianity. If the ban were truly applied to all facets of public civil service, it should be applied to the National Assembly as well. That’s only fair, right?

Although Christianity certainly played a historic role in establishing Quebec, it’s wrong to single out this one belief system as superior to other religions in Quebec. This logic is a product of the abuse and erasure of Indigenous peoples and culture. It is a result of what happened when colonialism, exploitation and racism collided and created chaos for a group of people.

Quebec’s past was forcefully Christian—other faiths were trampled upon and completely disregarded. Quebec’s present, however, is a multitude of faiths, belief systems and religious identities. Its future is in the hands of many people from different backgrounds who believe in different things. Banning their religious symbols and their ability to freely express themselves is not only oppressive, it’s regressive. We at The Concordian strongly encourage our fellow citizens to stand firm in rejecting this hypocritical, backwards, oppressive ban. Let’s fight for a future where diversity is celebrated, rather than forbidden.

Graphic by Ana Bilokin

Categories
Opinions

Editorial: The complexities behind the legalization of marijuana

graphic by @spooky_soda

Marijuana legalization is on the horizon. The people have spoken, and as of Oct. 17 they’ll be tokin’. Yet, the legalization process is more complex than simply lifting the ban on getting high; the way it is executed can mean the difference between freedom for citizens and more centralized state power.

Policing marijuana and other substances has been a method of controlling populations—particularly by criminalizing certain groups—for a long time. Enforcing substance laws is often used as a tool by powerful groups to further their goals. This often invokes keeping poor people, racial and gender minorities, and other disenfranchised groups at the lowest of our class structure.

The way the war on drugs campaign started proves this. As admitted by Richard Nixon’s former assistant to the president for domestic affairs John Ehrlichman: “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.” This is pretty clear evidence that the prohibition of marijuana is not about any moral issues with consumption of the drug. So legalizing marijuana is clearly a good thing, because it’s a step toward ending arbitrary means of state control.

This is the stance that was taken by the Bloc Pot political party in the recent Quebec election. Their main platform highlighted the prohibition of marijuana as a tool for the state to control and disempower its citizens. While they are in support of legalizing marijuana, they point out the problems with governments controlling that legalization process. The party also advocates for marijuana to be left out of the Criminal Code and the Canadian government’s control completely.

Quebec premier François Legault of the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) will soon have to confront the task of implementing marijuana legalization in Quebec. One of the stipulations in his legalization plan is bumping the legal age from 18 (as was previously intended) up to 21. How he implements and regulates the rest of the law will affect more than just the minute details around buying weed; it could be the difference between maintaining oppressive social structures or granting people autonomy.

Legault, who ran on the promise of reducing immigration in Quebec by one fifth and imposing a “Quebec values” test on immigrants, doesn’t have the greatest track record with minorities. The CAQ’s immigration policies are outside the realm of marijuana legalization, but the reality is that generating and maintaining laws about personal issues like consuming marijuana only lends more power to the state to intervene in people’s lives. As essayist Jackie Wang argued in her book, Carceral Capitalism, right-wingers and neoliberals only want reduced state control until it involves policing the lives of minorities—a contradiction no doubt. It is likely that even as marijuana is legalized, it will still be heavily policed/regulated, which will disproportionately affect minority communities. Therefore, we will need to pay attention to the details surrounding legalization and make our voices heard if they are unjust.

The legalization of marijuana will not dissolve problematic structures in society any more than it will cure cancer, but leaving the police out of as many parts of our lives as possible is something that is in the best interest of the vulnerable members of our society, and thus something we should all strive for.

Graphic by @spooky_soda

 

Categories
News

Retired ConU prof sends email endorsing CAQ to students

A retired Concordia University professor drew criticism for sending an email to his former students Thursday morning encouraging them to vote in the upcoming provincial election and emphasizing his personal inclination towards the Coalition Avenir Québec party.

In a message sent around 10:30 a.m. from his Concordia University email address, Dr. Jack Ornstein stressed his concerns about students voting on September 4. Furthermore, Ornstein wrote that he was “seriously thinking about voting for the CAQ” for several reasons.

“I have always held my nose and voted for the Liberals in Quebec provincial elections, as I am sure many other anglophones have done,” wrote Ornstein in the email.  “But no longer.”

Ornstein listed his aversion to a sovereign Quebec and the current tuition freeze, his desire for “a strong and prosperous but socially responsible economy,” and his disdain for corruption as his reasons for potentially voting for the CAQ.

Ornstein maintained that he was not trying to sway students into voting for the CAQ specifically but merely to vote at all.

“I am not trying to influence any of you to vote for the CAQ, honestly,” Ornstein wrote. “But I am hoping you will all at least vote.”

Concordia undergraduate student Cleo Donnelly was one of several students who received the email from Ornstein. Donnelly had Ornstein as a professor for Biomedical Ethics last semester, an online philosophy elective taught by Ornstein offered through eConcordia.

“I thought that it was good that he encouraged students to vote for whomever, as long as they voted,” said Donnelly. “But at the same time he did sound a bit as if he was trying to sway us towards the CAQ.”

Although Donnelly was surprised by the email, she stated that she believes political discussions between students and professors are best done in person. She also took issue with Ornstein singling out the CAQ as his preferred political party.

“While I would love to discuss politics with teachers, there needs to be an opportunity for a rebuttal,” explained Donnelly. “Because now a bunch of people know nothing about politics save that one party.”

Kayla Butz, an accounting student at Concordia who also took Ornstein’s class, considered replying to the email.

“He claimed not to be influencing our votes but he was making his choice pretty clear,” said Butz.

Butz explained that she thought Ornstein was trying to persuade students to vote and explore other parties, rather than boycotting voting all together.

Concordia Student Union President Schubert Laforest said that he felt Ornstein’s message was sent through an inappropriate channel.

“The fact he’s encouraging students to vote is great because it’s time to put our ballots where our mouths are,” said Laforest. “However I do not think it’s necessarily appropriate to use this forum to propagate your personal, political views.”

“These are personal student emails,” continued Laforest. “I really question the ethics of doing it that way. It’s unethical, it’s bad practice.”

Jack Ornstein declined to be interviewed by The Concordian.

Exit mobile version