"We have consensus- Charest"
The Gazette, Montreal, November 8, 2008
The crisis over reasonable accommodation of newcomers to Quebec, seen by some in the province as a threat to their identity, has been settled, Premier Jean Charest said yesterday"Today, we have a consensus on the measures that we have adopted," the premier said on a campaign stop in the Mauricie region, where the identity debate was set off two years ago when the village of Hérouxville adopted its code for living, which banned the burning of women, genital excision and attributes of non-Christian religions, such as head coverings and kirpans [Sikh ceremonial daggers].
"Not everyone will agree and we don't expect we will get unanimity on these measures," he added.
Starting in January, immigrants to Quebec must sign a declaration saying they will respect Quebec's common values and promise to learn French, acknowledge they understand that men and woman have equal rights and that political and religious powers are separate.The immigration application of anyone who refuses to sign the declaration will be rejected.
I hope that I don't sound ignorant for asking how the village of Herouxville adopted a code which banned "attributes of non-Christian religions, such as head coverings", when head coverings are an attribute of many varieties of those in the "Christian religions", including Roman Catholic.
The 2001 census showed the population to be 83.4% Catholic Christian (including 83.2% Roman Catholic); 4.7% Protestant Christian (including 1.2% Anglican, 0.7% United Church; and 0.5% Baptist); 1.4% Orthodox Christian (including 0.7% Greek Orthodox); and 0.8% Other Christian; as well as 1.5% Muslim; 1.3% Jewish; 0.6% Buddhist; 0.3% Hindu; and 0.1% Sikh. An additional 5.8% of the population said they had no religious affiliation (including 5.6% who stated that they had no religion at all). - wikipedia/Quebec
So which heritage and identity are we going for there, Quebec?
3 comments:
The hijab: A symbol of dignity, propriety and women's modesty 2
Basically, there is no binding prescription for the veil in Islamic law, but there are suggestions, as in the 33rd verse of the Holy Quran: "Oh Prophet, say to thy wives, and thy daughters, and the women folk of the believers, that they let down some part of their mantles over them, that is suitable for their being recognised and not insulted" (33:59).
In another verse, "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty, that they should not display their beauty and charms except what (normally) appears of them, that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and display their beauty only to their husbands, their fathers" (24:31).
This verse is interpreted as evidence of the exhortation to Muslim women to veil themselves. Accordingly, the hijab became a basic practice for all Muslim women. Moreover, it represents a symbol of women's dignity; a cover that shelters them from the public's eyes. This is the wisdom behind the hijab.
In Islamic literature, nothing more illustrates the interaction of Quranic prescription and customary practices than the development of the hijab and seclusion (harem) of women. Both are believed to be customs assimilated from the conquered Persian and Byzantine societies and viewed as appropriate expressions of Quranic norms and values. The connection between the hijab and the seclusion appeared only when, during Muslim conquests of Persia and India, many noble women went into seclusion as a sign of prestige.
Opponents of the veil, however, claim that the Holy Quran does not stipulate the veil or seclusion. On the contrary, it tends to encourage women's active participation in the public life and emphasizes equal religious responsibility of both sexes. They also point out that while on pilgrimage (ritual consecration) men and women are required to uncover their face and hands.
Muslim jurists interpret the imposition of the veil as a way to shelter and protect women from being exposed to the public glare. In fact, the concept of the veil already existed in countries that were conquered by Muslims, and where the veil was considered a symbol of class distinction. It was the right of free women to wear it. In contrast, the slave who did this was liable to be punished. When Islam arrived, it imposed the hijab as a common practice for all female believers, regardless of their status. In fact, in Islam modesty is required of both sexes.
Through the years, the concept of the hijab went through certain stages of development, according to the nature of the society where it was worn and according to the time in which it was adopted. Although it is not specified in Islam, the hijab's color has also developed over the years, according to the area in which it is worn and the status of those wearing it.
Black seems to be favoured by noble women and by those from the upper strata of society. It represents women's propriety and dignity. With the spread of Islam, the custom of wearing the veil spread quickly.
In fact, it became the most visible sign of religion in secular societies. It was this sign that some secular societies found alarming. Although it might be seen as purely internal issue, France's action has many implications. The most serious of all is the standpoint, which interprets this action as a part of the so-called "clash of civilizations". Muslim communities worldwide viewed France's action as hostile and irresponsible – one that could affect the lives and freedom of millions of Muslim women in France.
It also affects the mere concept of France's values and what it stands for, as far as human dignity and freedom are concerned. France, which is multi-cultural and one of Europe's freest societies, has chosen to adopt a strict law that deprives some of its citizens of their rights.
Although France's action is criticized by many human rights groups, who see it as a breach of civil liberties, the French Parliament went ahead and approved it, thus creating a rift between France and millions of Muslims worldwide. It also affected the image of France as a free society in the eyes of many, including some westerners. By adopting such a law, France has opened the way for other European countries to follow suit. Whether France's action has far-reaching political implications or not remains to be seen.
Hello,Ã
As a French living in Quebec, I kind of know both side (of the Atlantic...) One thing in common in both case is that the Catholic Church had a very strong power (and didn't it use kindly...) in both countries and that's why people are so afraid of any religious groups too "visible", also both countries emphasize a secular society. I make it short of course...
Great blog by the way!
Emma
Lisa, did you see this? :-)
http://muhala.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment