I drafted a letter which was eventually signed by over 250 members of the physics department at McGill. I'm happy, at least, that in my immediate sphere, people believe in freedom of thought, religion, attire, and they are ready to lend support to safeguarding these human rights.
In this I personally felt so grateful to WiP: Women in Physics; these people actually took my grumblings and suggested a pathway (drafting a letter and putting it on the website) to show solidarity against such a law. They also took charge of getting signatures. I'm super impressed by what they stand for, and their organizational ability.
Now, unfortunately, the letter cannot serve the larger purpose of trying to put further pressure on the McGill higher ups to take a stand against Bill 21. The very day we put this letter out, McGill released a rather tame letter that does not oppose Bill 21 in any shape or form.
This whole scenario has led me to believe in the following:
1. Since 75% of Quebec believes women in Hijabs, or men in Kippahs or Turbans cannot be teachers, Quebec feels like it is fundamentally different from the rest of North America.
2. I wish people would stop using the phrase "Western values". It is meaningless. European values are generally different from North American values. North American values are individualism as a binding legalistic concept, borne out of the American Revolution and enshrined in the Bill of Rights (I heart James Madison, but credit goes also to his fellow American revolutionaries and English philosophers of the time, along with Montesquieu). The second important facet of North American values is multiculturalism, which is a byproduct of international immigration. Pierre Trudeau reserves the intellectual claim to introducing this concept, but credit must also be given to Lyndon B. Johnson who opened borders of the US to people from all over the world. Silicon Valley is a shining example of what can be achieved in a multicultural world. Also note that most of Western Europe does not espouse any of these values. This is evident from the fact that France, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany etc. have more draconian laws prohibiting fundamental freedoms, make it incredibly hard to obtain citizenship unless you have blood relations or ancestry from one of these places.
3. One way to view Bill 21 is to note that it is a case where "a democratically elected government, supported by the majority, works to take away rights of a minority, and they are ready to do so by using a legal clause (the notwithstanding clause) which suspends judicial review so that they do not even have the legal right to protect themselves".
4. The notwithstanding clause cannot and should not be part of the Canadian constitution. It allows any province to create a law that is opposed to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it allows the province to implement it for 5 years disallowing legal challenge. It does not behoove a modern, progressive union to be based on a constitution that allows for such an extended violation of basic rights and freedoms. Suspending judicial review is what one does only in emergencies, and even then usually it leads to a gross violation of human rights. Quebeckers from the time of the October Crisis should know this very well themselves...
5. The above reflects poorly not only on the state of society with regards to their acceptance of minorities, but it also suggests a society which does not particularly value rule of law, judicial process, checks and balances. This I find rather hard to swallow.
6. Canadians could learn from their neighbors in the south to engage more politically. I notice it often that Canadians strive to be "what is not America", but given the success of the US is so many ways, this is like shooting yourself in the foot.
7. I've felt so mentally devastated by all of this recently that I've come to the point that I've decided to just zone it out. Because there is not much I can do. Luckily, my science is more exciting than ever, and thankfully life is good otherwise.
In this I personally felt so grateful to WiP: Women in Physics; these people actually took my grumblings and suggested a pathway (drafting a letter and putting it on the website) to show solidarity against such a law. They also took charge of getting signatures. I'm super impressed by what they stand for, and their organizational ability.
Now, unfortunately, the letter cannot serve the larger purpose of trying to put further pressure on the McGill higher ups to take a stand against Bill 21. The very day we put this letter out, McGill released a rather tame letter that does not oppose Bill 21 in any shape or form.
This whole scenario has led me to believe in the following:
1. Since 75% of Quebec believes women in Hijabs, or men in Kippahs or Turbans cannot be teachers, Quebec feels like it is fundamentally different from the rest of North America.
2. I wish people would stop using the phrase "Western values". It is meaningless. European values are generally different from North American values. North American values are individualism as a binding legalistic concept, borne out of the American Revolution and enshrined in the Bill of Rights (I heart James Madison, but credit goes also to his fellow American revolutionaries and English philosophers of the time, along with Montesquieu). The second important facet of North American values is multiculturalism, which is a byproduct of international immigration. Pierre Trudeau reserves the intellectual claim to introducing this concept, but credit must also be given to Lyndon B. Johnson who opened borders of the US to people from all over the world. Silicon Valley is a shining example of what can be achieved in a multicultural world. Also note that most of Western Europe does not espouse any of these values. This is evident from the fact that France, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany etc. have more draconian laws prohibiting fundamental freedoms, make it incredibly hard to obtain citizenship unless you have blood relations or ancestry from one of these places.
3. One way to view Bill 21 is to note that it is a case where "a democratically elected government, supported by the majority, works to take away rights of a minority, and they are ready to do so by using a legal clause (the notwithstanding clause) which suspends judicial review so that they do not even have the legal right to protect themselves".
4. The notwithstanding clause cannot and should not be part of the Canadian constitution. It allows any province to create a law that is opposed to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it allows the province to implement it for 5 years disallowing legal challenge. It does not behoove a modern, progressive union to be based on a constitution that allows for such an extended violation of basic rights and freedoms. Suspending judicial review is what one does only in emergencies, and even then usually it leads to a gross violation of human rights. Quebeckers from the time of the October Crisis should know this very well themselves...
5. The above reflects poorly not only on the state of society with regards to their acceptance of minorities, but it also suggests a society which does not particularly value rule of law, judicial process, checks and balances. This I find rather hard to swallow.
6. Canadians could learn from their neighbors in the south to engage more politically. I notice it often that Canadians strive to be "what is not America", but given the success of the US is so many ways, this is like shooting yourself in the foot.
7. I've felt so mentally devastated by all of this recently that I've come to the point that I've decided to just zone it out. Because there is not much I can do. Luckily, my science is more exciting than ever, and thankfully life is good otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment