I am not particularly fond of Glenn Beck, and have trouble sometimes believing that he is not an Andy Kaufman style comedian, and in reality a moderate playing a role to prove a point. I'd like to believe this, but the sad truth is that he is very likely the raving lunatic he seems to be, or worse, he is exaggerating to create a phenomena to generate personal wealth.
At any rate, some of the comments here have opened my thoughts to what was recently here in Canada (Herouxville quebec specifically)a hot pressing issue: Reasonable Accommodation.
"A reasonable accommodation is an adjustment or change in a system to "accommodate" or make fair a system for an individual based on a proven need. Accommodations can be religious, academic, or employment related and are often mandated by law. Each country has its own system of reasonable accommodations. The United Nations use this term in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, even whose refuse is defined to be discrimination. In that convention a reasonable accommodation is defined as:
โReasonable accommodationโ means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms;[1]"
"Canada
In Canada to refer to the theory that equality rights set out in provincial and federal anti-discrimination laws and in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms demand that accommodation be made to various minorities. (The origin of the term "reasonable accommodation" is found in labour law jurisprudence, specifically O'Malley and Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536 and is argued to be the obligation of employers to change some general rules for certain employees, under the condition that this does not cause "undue hardship".)
[edit] Examples
In Quebec, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the question on what was and will be the national identity has been contested, such as the court decision in Multani v. Commission scolaire MargueriteโBourgeoys.
Also controversial was the initial "code of conduct" passed by the municipal council in the town of Hérouxville. The document states that stoning women or burning them alive is prohibited, as is excision (female genital cutting). The motion explains many practices considered normal in Western culture. These standards also state that carrying a weapon to school (a reference to the Sikh ceremonial kirpan), covering one's face (some particular forms of the Muslim veil), and the accommodation for prayer in school will not be permitted. It attests that "Our people eat to nourish the body, not the soul," in reference to Jewish and Muslim dietary laws, and that health-care professionals "do not have to ask permission to perform blood transfusions."A discussion was started early in 2007 when a YMCA set up clouded windows to shelter ultra-Orthodox Jews who had complained that youngsters had to watch women in gym attire. The subjects of balloting while clothed in a niqab or burka along with the forbidding of hijabs in athletic contests have also produced plenty of debate and conflict in the province.[2] [this was a block from my home]
An "accommodation" was reached between the provincial government and the Roman Catholic Church on the disposal of underused churches in an overwhelmingly secular province. Local parishes were given the opportunity to develop the buildings as community centres, for example, rather than give way to condominium construction.
[edit] Accommodation to Judaism
Benjamin Rubin, a forward with the Gatineau Olympiques ice hockey team, refused to play several key matches because they fell on a Jewish holiday. Some claimed the Jews would end up forcing the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League to reschedule all their matches on Fridays and Saturdays. In fact, Rubin and the Olympiques came to an agreement, and "he will only miss a handful of games." He has since left the team.[3][4]
[edit] Accommodation for Muslim headgear
Muslim women wearing the niqab (veil) or burka will be allowed to vote in all upcoming national elections, byelections and referendums without showing their faces, Elections Canada has said.[5] The same policy applies to all Canadians under federal Bill C-31, in that photo ID is not strictly required, if two other pieces of acceptable official ID are provided, or another voter vouches for them.
The proclamation has caused much conflict in Quebec, where there is a considerable Muslim community and angry antagonism to this and other classes of accommodation.[5] Premier Charest entitled the happening a "bad decision" and said further that the discussion had already occurred in his province, which forbade the practice.[5]
The national Conservative government challenged Canada's chief electoral officer, Marc Mayrand, to examine his conclusion to permit Muslim women to vote with their faces hidden. The federal Liberals and the Bloc Québécois also requested such a reversal, to demand all voters show their faces in order to vote, even those whose faces are normally covered for religious reasons. They joined other federal and provincial politicians from Quebec who attacked the decision.[6]Sarah Elgazzar, an advocate for the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations in Montreal, declared that it is improbable that very many Muslim women will have hidden faces when voting. Elgazzar insisted that women using niqabs usually take them off to distinguish themselves and do not sport them for photo IDs.[7] This fact was echoed by Salam Elmenyawi of the Muslim Council of Montreal.[8]
Several girls have been banned from competing in sporting events in Canada for wearing the hijab while playing.[9][edit] Media exposure
There was extensive coverage of related issues in Quebec's news media in 2006 and 2007, which some analysts attributed more to the pressure of competition than to citizen concern. The media play reached such an extent that the premier of the province stated several non-negotiable values, such as "the equality of women and men; the primacy of French; the separation between the state and religion".
Several commentators have avowed that the debate caused support for the conservative ADQ party to increase, such that it formed the official opposition in the provincial legislature for one term from 2007 to 2008, until the increasing prominence of the global economic crisis relegated reasonable accommodation to an issue of less importance.[10]
[edit] Employment integration
A recent examination from Statistics Canada demonstrated that Quebec has the lowest newcomer employment rate in Canada.[citation needed] The newest immigrants endured an unemployment ratio of 17.8% in 2006, or almost three times the 6.3% ratio of native-born help. In contrast, joblessness among current newcomers in Ontario is 11% contrasted with 4.4% among the Canadian-born. In British Columbia, the numbers are 9.5% and 3.7%, respectively.
"She notes that it will be some time before she and her colleagues can do enough analysis to say much about the causes of this phenomenon. Nevertheless, Quebec does seem to favour a more extreme version of this (syndrome) than other provinces. Several factors are the devaluation of allegedly inadequate foreign credentials, language tests that have little to do with professional performance and "Canadian experience" requirements that serve as an all-purpose excuse to lock out job applicants who don't already have a job.
"In both Quebec and Canada as a whole, 26 per cent said their biggest employment problem was a demand for Canadian experience and 21 per cent said it was would-be employers who wouldn't recognize foreign credentials or experience."
Quebec also offers the highest levels of state welfare of any province of Canada. This may be a contributing factor to slow down the integration of immigrants into the workforce.[5]
[edit] Political reaction
Former leader of the Parti Québécois André Boisclair noted, "We're not talking about reasonable accommodation [if] it has nothing to do with public services," Boisclair said. At the same time, Boisclair blamed Premier Jean Charest for pandering to Quebecers who balk at adjustments made for immigrants in civil society.
Charest declined to defend them when girls wearing hijab were prohibited from soccer and tae kwon do, and when prejudiced remarks were offered about Jews.[6]
Mario Dumont, leader of the Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ) said in an interview in La Presse that Quebec needs more immigration for economic and demographic reasons. But believes that Quebec had met its limits of immigrant acculturation, and that any further increase in rates of immigration would create ghettos. (At present, the province accepts a smaller percentage of newcomers than elsewhere in Canada [7].) He criticized Charest for a plan to raise such levels when the Liberal government has cut funds for integration of newcomers into French culture. 'We're a linguistic minority...and immigrants need francization,' Dumont said. 'It's quite a challenge.'[8]
Current Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois said that Quebec should assume all control over its immigration, not the 60% that it has now under a bilateral agreement with the government of Canada. She also said the province should make the message clear to immigrants that Quebec is a francophone "state", not officially bilingual as is Canada and Quebec's neighbouring province New Brunswick.
Ms. Marois avows that Quebec is in need of more immigrants, to offset with a declining birth rate for future labor needs. She further believes that Quebec is a francophone state in where the rights of the anglophone minority are respected, and where all the inhabitants live in French [9].
Charest criticized his political adversaries in the provincial legislature, and blamed them for encouraging "intolerance" in the continuing controversy. He published an open letter in regional dailies, saying he is worried the province's image of openness will diminish outside Quebec.
Dumont's statements about immigration, he said, led to the passing of a code of conduct by the town of Hérouxville that notified Muslims that face veils or stoning women would not be accepted there.
[10][11]
[edit] The Commission on Reasonable Accommodation
Premier Jean Charest, citing several instances of "unreasonable" accommodation, advised the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec to appoint a two-man commission in February, 2007, to investigate the issue of reasonable accommodation, and report back by March 31, 2008. The formal title for the Commission[11] is the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences,[12] and it is sometimes called the Bouchard-Taylor Commission. Its commissioners are professors Charles Taylor, a well-known federalist philosopher, and Gérard Bouchard, a sovereigntist historian and sociologist. Doubt was cast on Bouchard's fitness to serve as an impartial chair, as before the commission held even one public hearing, he announced in an interview that sovereignty was the solution to calm Franco-Quebeckers' cultural insecurity. Co-chair Taylor stated, however, that Quebecers need to demonstrate the "openness and generosity of spirit" that majorities should have towards minorities.[13]
The commission conducted conferences in various Quebec regions. The committee listened to individuals, organizations, and experts on Quebec identity, religion, and integration of so-called cultural communities (minority groups).[14]
Before formal proceedings began, Bouchard and Taylor said they found an insecurity in Quebec's pure laine population in focus groups across the province. The commissioners observed concern that Muslims, for example, are somehow taking over Canadian societyโwhen, in fact, they represent 1.5% of the population.[15][n.b. "purelaine", or "pure wool" is IMO a quebecois racist term, but widely accepted and defended, meaning someone who is pure french quebecois (and unstated, but implicit, white) and not an immigrant. Ironically, as with the rest of North america, with the exception, arguably, of the "native american" aboriginal population, we are clearly ALL immigrants!)[edit] United States
In the US reasonable accommodations are made for employment, education, courts and public venues. The Americans With Disabilities Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990 by former President George H. W. Bush, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) changed the way courts serve individuals with qualified disabilities. The intent of this landmark legislation is to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities and ensure they have the same opportunities available to persons without disabilities. Courts achieve equity by providing reasonable accommodations to disabled people in order to level the playing field.
The ADA is divided into five sections, Titles I-V. Title II provides that โno qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by any such entity.โ"
Wikepedia
Very interesting, topical, and incendiary question: how much DO you accommodate a different culture in your own country? Different people have different lines, and both extremes, IMO are equally deleterious to a country's well being, diversity and place in the global community. Hence "reasonable", but I fear one man's reason may be another's folly... In the case of Glenn Beck and his cohorts, foul foolery (2nd time I have used this phrase today... weird)
Fud fer taught,
JBArk
EDIT: I hope i haven't derailed this thread too much...
JBArk is a Mandelthought; a non-fiction character in a drama of his own design he calls "LIFE" who partakes in consciousness expanding activities and substances; he should in no way be confused with SWIM, who is an eminently data-mineable and prolific character who has somehow convinced himself the target he wears on his forehead is actually a shield.