From One Minority to Another
The
Sikh community has some friendly advice for politicians in Quebec’s National
Assembly: you can’t preserve your culture at the expense of someone else’s.
When the World Sikh Organization of Canada was invited to speak in Quebec about
Muslim women’s right to wear the niqab last week, we didn’t expect to spark
another national discussion on the sovereignist view of the province as a
distinct society. That kirpans, the articles of faith worn by all initiated
Sikhs, had become a flashpoint for Quebec nationalism surprised no one more than
us.
As a human-rights group that often intervenes in cases involving freedom of
religion, it’s common for the WSO to speak on issues like Bill 94, which seeks
to deny government services to anyone wearing a veil. Ironically, the Sikh
religion expressly forbids women from wearing the veil, though not due to issues
of gender. Since its inception in the 15th century, our faith has embraced what
is now called gender equality. We believe that living in a just society means
protecting everyone’s right to live a good life as he or she sees fit. That’s
why, last year, we lobbied on behalf of an Alberta teenager of Scottish ancestry
whose school tried to prevent him from wearing a kilt to grad – although it’s
rare to find a Sikh in a kilt.
Although our faith originated in India, you’ll find Sikhs all over the globe.
It’s no accident that the largest Sikh communities outside of India are found in
the U.K. and Canada – two nations with a long commitment to democracy, which, by
definition, means protecting minority rights. Sikhs have been drawn to Canada
for more than a century, largely because Sikh spiritual teachings echo
democratic political philosophies like freedom of speech, religion, and
association, all of which Canada strives to achieve.
Our religion teaches us to value equality for all, and as Canadians we’re proud
of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But there is also a practical aspect to
this approach – a glance at global politics reveals that persecuting minorities
leads to political unrest, social and economic instability, and, in the worst
cases, blood in the streets. Moral issues aside, oppressing minorities is an
impractical, shortsighted way to govern. And it almost always leads to a
nation’s implosion.
Nevertheless, Sikhs find themselves to be part of a minority no matter where
they live – even in India – so we understand Quebec’s concern for its survival.
Parti Québécois member Louise Beaudoin suggested that “religious freedom exists,
but there are other values. For instance, multiculturalism is not a Quebec
value. It may be a Canadian one but it is not a Quebec one.” For expressing such
views, Beaudoin was accused of racism.
It may have sounded like bigotry to some, but we heard fear in that comment –
fear of religion, due to Quebec’s own dark history with the Catholic Church, and
fear that if they don’t force the assimilation of minorities then somehow they
will erode Quebec’s essential Frenchness.
But minority to minority, we want to give the politicians in Quebec’s National
Assembly a little friendly advice: you can’t preserve your culture at the
expense of someone else’s. That just sows the seeds of discontent. Canadians
know this, and the Québécois should too. Ironically, Quebec’s distinct culture
endures because Canada valued and protected its French minority. And most of us
recognize that Canada is richer for having accommodated Quebec. Though the
Québécois may not like to hear it, without multiculturalism they would have
suffered the fate of the U.S.’s French pioneers, the Cajuns.
When it comes to minority rights, Canada took its inspiration from the U.K.
Considering that England is one of the oldest, most stable nations in the world,
it’s easy to see that the democratic approach works. Multiculturalism comes
packaged with many other fundamental liberal democratic values. When people are
pressed to abandon parts of their identities, freedom of expression and freedom
of religion are placed in jeopardy However, by encouraging citizens to maintain
their cultural identities, countries allow such freedoms to reign.
By contrast, Quebec has chosen to embrace France’s model of laicite – an
aggressive form of secularism that is actively anti-religious. In the past, this
method has led to significant social problems and the marginalization of
minorities. The tensions it causes have often erupted into violence. Such was
the case, for instance, when laicite spurred France’s civil unrest and riots in
2005.
As a religious community, Sikhs work hard to preserve our culture, and we
support our fellow citizens in doing the same – including the Québécois. But as
Canadians, we also know that you can’t build a nation by destroying some of the
people within it, which is ultimately what petty, discriminatory laws aim to do.
Balpreet Singh
Legal counsel, World Sikh Organization of Canada.
Source:
http://www.themarknews.com/authors/1346-balpreet-singh |