Le débat sur la Charte de la laïcité est psychologiquement éprouvant pour ceux qui, comme moi, s’opposent à l’interdiction des signes religieux pour tous les employés des secteurs public et parapublic. Après six mois de débat, les opposants sont toujours minoritaires. Des amis ont vu leur réputation attaquée, et il fait moins bon aujourd’hui d’être un Québécois de confession musulmane qu’avant le début du débat. Le Parti québécois, les Janette et les autres ne l’ont pas eu facile jusqu’ici, loin s’en faut, mais la Charte reçoit l’assentiment de la moitié de la population. Les partisans d’une laïcité apaisée et équilibrée gagnent les débats d’idées, mais perdent pour l’instant la joute politique. Certains diront que mes biais cognitifs embrouillent mon jugement, mais on ne peut nier que les universités et la majorité des chercheurs spécialistes des questions soulevées par la Charte, le Barreau du Québec, la Commission des droits et libertés du Québec, la Fédération des femmes du Québec et d’autres acteurs majeurs se sont tous prononcés contre la Charte.… Continue reading
One of the most baffling features of the debate about the Charter of Values in Quebec is the number of politicians and commentators who have lined up to defend the Charter by denouncing multiculturalism in Europe, but without showing even the faintest notion of how multiculturalism functions in Canada. Consider, for example, the bizarre lede of Jean-François Lisée’s op-ed in the New York Times:
Angela Merkel deemed multiculturalism — the idea that social harmony is best achieved through celebrating our differences — a complete failure in Germany. David Cameron claimed it facilitated the rise of radical Islam in Britain and called for “stronger societies and identities at home,” along with a “much more active, muscular liberalism” that “believes in certain values and actively promotes them.” Last fall, the European backlash against multiculturalism crossed the Atlantic and landed in Quebec…
A reasonable person might wonder why a European backlash against multiculturalism might land on the shores of Quebec.… Continue reading
Like many, many people in Toronto, I woke up this morning trying not to think about our mayor, Rob Ford. I couldn’t bring myself to watch him on Jimmy Kimmel late night (the pathos is too much for me). But then I noticed that Toronto Star reporter Robyn Doolittle was giving a talk on campus at noon, so I surrendered — might was well make it an all-Ford, all-the-time sort of day. So I took a look at the Kimmel appearance, and now, what do you know, I’m writing about Rob Ford.
As far as the late-night appearance is concerned, people paid a lot of attention to the fact that Kimmel was “mean” to Ford, or that he had “ridiculed” him, or that it was “embarrassing” for the city. I actually thought it made us (i.e. people living in Toronto) look marginally less insane. Here’s why. My guess is that any political strategist watching that appearance could see exactly why Ford is a successful retail politician.… Continue reading
Anyone who reads the news has no doubt noticed that MPs have been using Twitter a lot. Not only are the content of tweets showing up more often in news stories, but increasingly the Twitter chatter is becoming the subject of the news. Here is an example of a story, for instance, that essentially concerns a Twitter fight that broke out during a Parliamentary session (and where what was being said on Twitter was more interesting than what was being said in the house). Here is another story that is basically a Twitter story, about a politician’s tweet and the response to it.
I’m not sure how I feel about all this. I know that debate in the House of Commons is terribly degraded, that the media is only looking for soundbites, and so on. But I’m not sure we should just give up and have politicians debate one another in snippets of no more than 140 characters.… Continue reading
Look at me now, all up in the interweb!… Continue reading