[Montreal] Accomodate This! Monday March 10

Print PDF

click here to download flier in english (ou en français)

**ACCOMMODATE THIS!**

-- A series of anti-racist workshops, discussions and events.
-- Part of the national week of action against racism.

(((( FIRST WORKSHOP OF THE SERIES ))))

*****************************************************

INTERSECTIONS: ANTI-RACISM AND FEMINISM

Monday March 10th, 6PM
UQAM, V Pavillion, Room 1430; 209, Ste-Catherine East
(Metro: Berri-UQAM)
*****************************************************

:::::::::::::::::::::: SPEAKERS :::::::::::::::::::::::

*Gada Mahrouse: is an Assistant Professor at Concordia University where she teaches courses on feminisms, race, and postcolonialisms. Currently, she is examining the "reasonable accommodation" debates in Quebec through a lens that explores discourses of assimilation and tolerance through a feminist, anti-racist analytical framework.

*Robyn Maynard : is a Montreal based organizer, member of No One Is Illegal Montreal and Project X, based in NDG.

*Alia Al-Saji: Alia Al-Saji is a Professor of Philosophy at McGill University in Montreal. She specializes in twentieth-century European philosophy, French philosophy and French feminism.

*Nesrine Bessaih : is an organizer for social justice. She is a co-founder of UTIL (Unité théâtrale d'interventions loufoques) -- a collective that uses street theater to raise awareness on social and political issues. She is also a member of the À bâbord! collective, a social and political publication put out by Quebec organizers and academics.


-- Bilingual presentations. English and French whisper translation.
-- Free childcare available.
-- Wheelchair accessible.

Organized by : the "Accommodate this!" campaign.
For more info, contact: (514) 398-3323 or email:
noii-montreal@resist.ca

--------------------------------------
<<<>>>>

During the month of March 2008, we are organizing a series of actions to denounce the racism and sexism at the roots of the "Reasonable Accommodation" debate and the Bouchard Taylor commission, and to focus on the real issues faced by racialized and migrant communities in montreal: unjust immigration laws, deportations, detentions, surveillance and harassment, exploitation at work, poverty, criminalization, sexism, police brutality, racial profiling, precarity etc.

<<>>
--------------------------------------
a series of workshops on the lived realities of racialized and migrant communities, to encourage discussions within different marginalized communities about issues linked to the struggles they are engaged in, for justice, for dignity and for self-determination.

(((( The FIRST Workshop of the series ))))

>> Intersections: Anti-Racism and Feminism

Monday March 10th, 6PM
UQAM, V Pavillion,209, Ste-Catherine East, Room 1430.
(Metro: Berri-UQAM)

(((( UPCOMING WORKSHOPS ))))

>> Gender, Race and Religious Identity

Saturday March 15th, 1PM
Centre des Femmes d'Ici et d'Ailleurs; 8043 St-Hubert (Metro: Jarry)
* Note: this workshop is open to women identifying people only.
Racialized and migrant women are encouraged to attend.

>> Fighting State and Interpersonal Gender Violence

Sunday March 16th, 2PM
Parc Extension Community Center; 419 St Roch St., 2nd floor, Room 9.
(Metro: Parc)

----------------------
For more info, contact us at: (514) 398-3323 or email: noii-montreal@resist.ca

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

[Le Drapeau Rouge] At Last the PQ Shows Its True Colours!

Print PDF

The below article in Le Drapeau Rouge; i felt it was well worth translating and sharing with you all.

At least in its newspaper, the Revolutionary Communist Party (the canadian one, not the Avakian outfit in the u.s.) is providing welcome leadership in opposing the rise of racism in Quebec, without ambiguity or compromise. While on the ground in Montreal most of the anti-racist organizing against the "reasonable accommodation" bullshit has come from groups like No One Is Illegal, the RCP benefits from greater organic ties to the Québécois revolutionary tradition, witness the forthright analysis of Pauline Marois' agenda in the Parti Québécois which follows:

Pauline Marois Demands a Makeover

At Last the PQ Shows Its True Colours!

With her proposed Québécois Identity Bill, the new Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois has shown that there is no limit to how low she will stoop to get back in power – even hunting for support on the ADQ’s terrain and leaping into racist and xenophobic manure. After several days of debate in which she did her best to defend her infamous Bill, the Lady of Île Bizard[1] once again tried to justify herself during the November 4 PQ commemoration of the 20^th anniversary of the death of its former leader René Lévesque.

Sharing the stage with a follower of the Church of Scientology (the popular singer France D’Amour), Pauline Marois first denounced her Liberal and ADQist adversaries “who are using a populist and demagogic approach but have no concrete proposals” as to how to affirm Québécois identity. “Well I do!” she added proudly. It is true that on top of joining the others in adopting a populist and demagogic approach, the new deputy from Charlevoix had done them one better, shamelessly proposing that certain civil rights be withdrawn from immigrants who, having already obtained Canadian citizenship, fail to show an “appropriate knowledge” of the French language.

It is obvious that this initiative from the PQ’s leader is simply politics, as she is sure to have known that her Bill had no chance of being adopted, and even if it was passed it would have likely been struck down by the courts. Ever since the last elections, the Parti Quebecois has been worried that the conservative section of its traditional supporters might leave it permanently for the ADQ. So, under the influence of political strategist Jean-Francois Lisée (the king of all gimmicks, who has himself just written a pamphlet in defense of cultural nationalism[2]), Pauline Marois decided to outflank Mario Dumont on his right and do her part in feeding the climate of fear and xenophobia which has polluted public debate in Quebec for over a year now, all in the hopes of leading her troops back into the fold.

In the end, it doesn’t matter if her Bill becomes a dead letter: public opinion will remember that Marois wants to put “the others” in their place (the others being all those who are not like us) and oblige them to conform to the dominant bourgeois ideology in Quebec. The PQ is betting that this rhetoric will pay off in terms of votes. And what does it matter if the verbal attacks, mainly against the Arab and Muslim communities, end up also leading to physical attacks: this would just be “collateral damage” in this PQist march back to power.

When she delivered her first speech to the National Assembly on October 16, Pauline Marois devoted most of it to defending cultural nationalism and stigmatizing the “foreigners,” going so far as to beseech Québécois, “don’t give up your place to others.” She joined the chorus insisting that everyone must submit to the famous “common values” imposed by the Québécois ruling class, which boil down to speaking French, complete secularism and that famous “equality between men and women,” which apparently constitutes one of the most important elements of Quebec society. Need we remind Pauline Marois that Quebec was the last Canadian province to grant women the right to vote in 1940? That it was only in 1980 (quite a bit less than a century ago!) that women in Quebec won the right to sign a mortgage? That not so long ago the dominant model was still the woman in the home, submissive to her husband, whose main role was to bear children and perpetuate the “French Canadian race” (remember Lionel Groulx?).

The PQ leader – and all those others who are condemning, in the name of gender equality, the fact that Muslim women “dare” to wear the Islamic headscarf – would do better to worry about the fact that the song of the year which was crowned at the last ADISQ[3] gala (a demagogic hymn entitled Dégéneration, from the reactionary group Mes Aïeux[4]) sings the praises of “the good old times when our grand mothers had fourteen children,” and when, of course, we did not have that awful right to an abortion… we think that things like that are much more worrisome than the purely hypothetical possibility that one day a woman wearing a niqab might ask to vote without showing her face.

The silence emanating from the “PQ left” regarding this racism and xenophobia is deplorable, but not at all surprising. The leaders of SPQ libre[5], Marc Laviolette and Pierre Dubuc (or as we have called them, the Laurel and Hardy of left nationalism), narrowly avoided the new leader’s cutting block, as Marois apparently wanted to dismantle their “political club.” Marois finally agreed to leave them their toy, but not before she grilled them and seems to have received the promise that they would stay in their place and not criticize her in any way. In any case, these two representatives of the alleged “left” of the PQ are 100% in agreement with the turn towards identity being carried out by Marois, as they were already attacking the “civic nationalism” promoted by her predecessor, Andre Boisclair.

The only criticism from within the ranks of the PQ has come from the Groupe d’action politique des Québecois et Québecoises issus de l’immigration, which is the body responsible for questions of immigration within the party. In an open letter published on October 18 in the newspaper le Devoir, the group’s spokesperson Kerlande Mibel protested against the emergence of a “populist cultural nationalism” within the PQ, “which demands that everyone share the same values and way of life.” “If tomorrow everyone must share the same values as white francophone Catholics, that isn’t progress,” notes Mibel, adding that every Quebecker should have “the same rights and responsibilities” – a position which is clearly not in step with the rest of the PQ!

One is forced to admit that Pauline Marois is at least consistent: her right turn on questions of identity is perfectly in step with her social and economic positions. Remember that when she was crowned in June, Pauline Number One came with certain conditions, “take it or leave it”: amongst these was the “rejuvenation” of the PQ’s social-democratic rhetoric, in the style of Tony Blair’s British Labour Party.

Under her leadership the PQ will adopt the line of the “lucides”[6] (which is not at all surprising when you note that the “lucides” included many well known PQists). From now on the emphasis will be on “creating wealth before we redistribute it.” Amongst other things, Pauline Marois has come out in favour of the university tuition hikes proposed by the Charest government. Loyal members of the Lady’s Praetorian Guard that they are, over the past few weeks the young PQists within the student movement carefully maneuvered to sabotage the campaign for a general student strike which had been initiated by the Association pour une solidarite syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ), and which as we know ended in failure.

The fact that the PQ is a reactionary bourgeois party is nothing new to Quebec workers, who have been subjected to its policies for 17 of the past 30 years. That the party is finally getting rid of its “progressive” window-dressing may have some noteworthy consequences. The PQ seems to be trying to compete with the ADQ to claim the political space traditionally held by the bleus[7] (i.e. the conservative right) in Quebec. As to the army of “followers” and civil servants which the party has generated within the civil society organizations, the question is how far are they willing to go down this path? There is a question which it is still too early to answer.

As workers, perhaps we should take advantage of this “political recomposition” within the Quebecois bourgeoisie to get rid of this scum once and for all; without a doubt, that would be the best result we could hope for.

Serge Gélinas, Le Drapeau Rouge Nov.-Déc 2007 translated by Kersplebedeb

all footnotes by the translator

---

[1] Marois, who was elected to represent the riding of Charlevoix, actually resides in a three million dollar mansion on a 41 acre estate in the suburb of Île Bizard.

[2] i have translated the term “nationalisme identitaire” (literally, “nationalism having to do with identity”) as “cultural nationalism.” Whereas the terms may not be a perfect fit, it strikes me as a more accurate translation than “ethnic nationalism.”

[3] Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo : the Quebec Association of the Recording, Festival and Video Industry.

[4] My Ancestors.

[5] A social democratic ginger group within the PQ.

[6] In 2005 the debate about which way forward for Quebec became characterized by two public manifestos, “For a Lucid Quebec” representing the economic right-wing and “For a Quebec in Solidarity” representing the social democratic position.

[7] Traditional party colours in Quebec have the liberals being the reds (!) and the conservatives being the blues.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Trade Unions Line Up for a "Neutral" Racist Quebec

Print PDF

Well, you know what i think: this is a white stain on the Quebec trade union movement, certainly not the first and certainly not the last.

In the present context it is clear that arguing for a "ban on religious symbols" is at best riding the wave of racism for one's own purposes, and we know that in politics, to ride a wave is to contribute to it. (At worst, well, at worst such a position is just a chickenshit way to promote one's own racism.)

Never mind the fact that "neutral State" is an oxymoron. It is always someone's State, meant to serve someone's interests. This is not about keeping the State "neutral," it's about establishing (once again) whose State it is, whose interests it will serve. For people on both sides, the hijab is becoming a powerful symbol, and women's bodies are once again metaphors , stand-ins for social conflicts. And in Quebec, when we talk about men forcing women how to dress, we are talking about men forcing women to reveal their faces as an ersatz pledge of allegiance to "our" nation.

Of course, a certain abstract class analysis pretends that the State only belongs to a few thousand of the wealthiest citizens, that everyone else is equally oppressed. Those who like this fairy tale then see no issue with trade unions asking the State to enforce "neutrality", because as far as they are concerned their interests, their culture, their heritage is indeed neutral. If the State's decision is not clearly biased in favour of Westmount (or perhaps Ste-Foy) well then it's not really biased, is it? Or at least, not in a bad way...

That there is hypocrisy and open racism amongst those who wish for the State to be simply anti-Muslim, or post-Catholic, like the ADQ argues, should not obscure the fact that there is also racism, and there is also hypocrisy, in the "progressive" option of riding the racist wave to suddenly pass a "Charter of Secularism," one which we all know would never come into existence without the current Islamophobic brouhaha and which in practice will be enforced primarily against Muslim women who wish to work in the public sector.

(As a corollary to all this, let it be noted that the public sector remains one of the most highly unionized work sectors, that the public sector already discriminates overwhelmingly against people of color and immigrants, and that exclusion from unionized sectors has been identified as a key factor pushing immigrant communities into the poorest layers of the Quebec proletariat, separate from and oppressed by the greater national class structure.)

To be clear: a State does not become a theocracy, or "religious," because a schoolteacher or a secretary or a bureaucrat or a politician does or does not wear a hijab, yarmulke or crucifix. That is not what constitutes a religious state, any more than a revolutionary State is one where some public sector employee wears a Che Guevara t-shirt. (joke: i guess an anarchist State would be one where a civil servant goes to work naked?)

Here's the article from today's newspaper. Now excuse me while i go and puke.

Unions against religious symbols
WANT THEM BANNED IN CIVIL SERVICE This would ‘ ensure the secular character of the state,’ SFPQ vice- president says

JEFF HEINRICH THE GAZETTE

No public servant – including Muslim teachers and judges – should be allowed to wear anything at work that shows what religion they belong to, leaders of Quebec’s two biggest trade union federations and a civil-servants union told the BouchardTaylor commission yesterday.

“We think that teachers shouldn’t wear any religious symbols – same thing for a judge in court, or a minister in the National Assembly, or a policeman – certainly not,” said René Roy, secretary-general of the 500,000-member Quebec Federation of Labour.

“The wearing of any religious symbol should be forbidden in the workplace of the civil service ... in order to ensure the secular character of the state,” said Lucie Grandmont, vice-president of the 40,000-member Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec.

Dress codes that ban religious expression should be part of a new “charter of secularism” – akin to the Charter of the French Language – that the Quebec government should adopt, said Claudette Carbonneau, president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux.

Such a charter is needed “to avoid anarchy, to avoid treating ( reasonable- accommodation) cases one by one,” Carbonneau said yesterday, presenting a brief on behalf of the federation’s 300,000 members at the commission’s hearing at the Palais des congrès.

Same point of view at the 150,000-member Centrale des syndicats du Québec, which includes 100,000 who work in the school system, the commission heard.

Quebec needs a “fundamental law” akin to the Charter of Rights that sets out clearly that public institutions, laws and the state are all neutral when it comes to religion, said Centrale president Réjean Parent. The new law would also “define (people’s) rights and duties ... in other words, the rules of living together.”

Under a secular charter, employers would understand that they don’t have to agree to accommodate religious employees if, for example, they ask to be segregated from people of the opposite sex, Carbonneau said.

Similarly, religious students in public schools would understand they can dress as they like, but not if it means wearing restrictive clothing like burqas, niqabs and chadors, which make communication difficult, she told commissioners Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor.

And in the courts, “there are cases that are clear – I wouldn’t want to see a judge in a veil,” she said. Judges need to appear “neutral” so as to inspire confidence in their judgment, she added.

The unions’ anti-religious attitude – especially the CSN’s idea to ban hijabs on teachers – got a cold reception from groups as disparate as a Muslim women’s aid organization and the nationalist Société St. Jean Baptiste of Montreal.

“What that would do is close the door to Muslim women who want to teach,” said Samaa Elibyari, a Montreal community radio host who spoke for the Canadian Council of Muslim Women. “It goes against religious freedoms that are guaranteed in the (Quebec) Charter of Rights.”

Elibyari said Muslim women routinely face discrimination in the workplace. They don’t need unions on their back, too.

“When a young teacher calls a school to see if she can do an internship, and is asked on the phone straight out: ‘Do you wear the veil?’; when a cashier at a supermarket is fired and her boss tells her: ‘The customers don’t want to see that,’ referring to the veil; when a secretary gets passed over for promotion even if she succeeds in all her French exams, and is told: ‘Take off that tablecloth’ – is that not discrimination?” Elibyari asked.

The commission is holding its final week of hearings this week in Montreal, bringing to an end a cross-Quebec tour that began in early September.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Immigrant Workers Centre Statement On Racist Reasonable Accommodation Bullshit

Print PDF

Here is an excellent statement on the racist "reasonable accommodation" hearings in Quebec, from Montreal's Immigrant Workers Centre:

Whose Reasonable Accommodation ?

The debate raised in Quebec on ‘reasonable accommodation’ is built on a number of false assumptions about the relationship between majority groups (‘we’) and minorities (‘they’) and what ‘we’ believe the correct behaviours of ‘they’ should be. It is the wrong debate. Reasonable accommodation should begin with the rights of workers. Accommodating reasonably implies the protection of basic rights, decent wages, rapid recognition of credentials, and terminating ‘guest worker’ programs that deny rights. We have to remember that historically Canada/Quebec has been created and developed through the colonization of First Peoples on the one hand and the exploitation of migrant labour on the other, in order to build the ‘nation’. These processes continue unabated.

The public debate on ‘reasonable accommodation’ remains how ‘they’ should modify their customs to accommodate ‘us’. It assumes, dangerously, that there are common values, as though such things actually exist. We are writing this because we do not believe in this false consensus, this tendency to homogenize all things except food, custom and costume. ‘Cultural accommodation’ blinds the public to the realities of migration, and how the middle and owning classes of Quebec society benefit from the exploitation of the ‘they’. The connections between immigration and labour are absent from the debate and we believe that it should be at its centre.

Let’s briefly review some of the trends in immigration and labour over the past 30 years and ask ourselves is this ‘reasonable accommodation’? Most immigrants arriving during this period are from countries in the South (Asia, Africa, Latin America) and therefore they are not white. The economic forces that push them out of their countries are the same ones that shape their conditions here. They are ‘the other’. They have arrived with high levels of education and skills. Yet over that time, most have not had their skills and training recognized and therefore, they have been forced to take jobs that many “Canadians/Quebecers” reject. They do the work that remains hidden: the caring for children and the elderly, the services and cleaning that allows the ‘we’ to function. In these jobs, there is little protection. Minimal labour standards exist on paper, but are not posted in workplaces or in private homes for caregivers and domestic workers. There are few inspectors and where these standards are abused, it is incumbent upon the workers her/himself to challenge her/his boss. They are often isolated and with few other employees. For people who are struggling to raise children and send remittance payments to family members in their countries of origin, this is a great risk. It takes enormous courage to stand up for their labour rights when the chances of their winning anything and keeping their job is remote. You might say that this is a situation of ‘reasonably accommodating’ the class interests of employers by providing a pool of skilled, cheap labour (trained and educated elsewhere) who are prepared to work in almost any conditions as the price of migration to a better place. In addition, there is little evidence to support the myth that ‘things get better for immigrants with time’.

Many Canadians and Quebecers are unaware that we have programs for ‘guest workers’, who are brought in for limited periods and sent back to their home countries when the work is done. This is the case of agricultural workers. Domestics, through the Live-in Caregiver Program, are brought in and if they comply as live-ins can apply as permanent residents. The federal government likes these programs and intends to increase their use because they allow labour to be brought in without any real ‘accommodation’ as strict rules regulate the conditions of exploitation. Workers in these programs have little recourse to protection from the laws and policies for ‘us’ and remain the ‘they’ of the labour market. Even worse off are the many workers without formal status- who remain hidden as cleaners, cooks, dish-washers and domestics, facing arbitrary and well-below the minimum wage and labour standards, not eligible to making any claims but available nonetheless to be exploited.

As the policies of the provincial and federal governments have been to open up markets and reduce ‘expensive’ state programs, immigrant labour has been one of the ways of filling the gaps left by the inadequacies of neo-liberal policies. We don’t need as many decent nursing homes if immigrant women, often trained as nurses, can provide cheap care at sub-standard private ones or in peoples’ homes. We don’t need as much public childcare if we can import nannies. We do not need to increase wages and improve working conditions if the international labour pool will continue to bring workers here who are pushed into sub-standard jobs. Accommodation implies justice for immigrant workers as a precondition for any other discussion.

Immigrant Workers Centre-Board and Staff
Tess Tesalona
Jill Hanley
Eric Shragge
Malcolm Guy
Sid de Guzman
Andre Rivard
Degane Sougal
Julia Jankousky
Valerie Lavigne
Karim Ben-Jemaa
Mostafa Henaway-Staff
Bita Eslami-coordinator

Immigrant Workers Centre Research Group
Eric Shragge
Jill Hanley
Steve Jordon
Aziz Choudry
Martha Stiegman




-------------------------

Onward With the Struggle!
Centre des Travailleurs et Travailleuses Immigrants
Immigrant Workers Center
6420 ave. Victoria Suite 9
Montreal, Quebec
H3W-2S7
Phone: (514)342-2111 Fax: (514)342-2786

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Anti-Racists Attacked by Police Outside "Reasonable Accomodation" Hearings in Montreal

Print PDF

On Tuesday night i was one of a hundred people who gathered on the ground floor at the Palais des Congres conference center to protest against the racist reasonable accommodation hearings being held there (on the third floor) that night.

(i would have posted about this earlier, but have been without internet for a number of days - i'm not actually posting from a public terminal right now)

The protest was organized by No One Is Illegal Montreal, and attracted people from a number of organizations and communities, including Solidarity Across Borders, the IWC, NEFAC, the PCR, and i'm sure many many others whose affiliations i did not get.

There were speeches, some more inspiring than others, some great poetry... and then we went up the escalators to the hearings, leaving some befuddled security guards behind (it's difficult for a half a dozen secuirty to stop a hundred people who want to go somewhere...)

We were up there for hours, more speeches, music, chanting, etc. At about 9pm, after our numbers had thinned, a group of people tried to actually enter the room where the hearings were happening. They were physically blocked by the security guards, and this time they failed to get through. (It's trickier to open a door towards you with security in front of it than it is to just walk up some stairs.)

At which point the cops, who had been lounging around, came to reinforce the conference center security. It was obvious that nobody was getting in to these supposedly "public" hearings, and so we left, at this point numbering perhaps fifty, walking down all those stairs to the ground floor with some now hyped up very young cops shoving people from behind, including people on the stairs who were trying to leave as quickly as was safely possible.

In my opinion, the reason the cops were being aggressive is because they felt stupid for having been caught sitting on their asses not noticing when folks tried to get in to the hearings. They were embarassed that the conference center security staff was left to "guard the gates" on their own, and they didn't like being called pigs by the demonstrators as they were leaving.

What happened next was a perfect symbol of the hearings, of "accomodation" in an unreasonably racist Quebec, and of plain old Montreal policing.

As everyone was milling around on the ground floor, surrounded by cops, it was announced that we all had to leave. It was obvious at this point that there was no point in resisting: there were many people there who could not afford to get arretsed, there were little children, and we were outnumbered.

So immediately, people started filing out of the building. The only reason for some delay was some people had to pick up their things, including a sound system. Nobody was staying behind or resisting, but the cops had already identified a few people they wanted to get, and they moved in to do so, grabbing folks, throwing them to the floor, all the while others charged at the remaining stragglers, shoving them with their batons.

This all happened less than one minute after it was announced that everyone had to leave. There was obviously no intention of allowing the demo to end peacefully.

Four people were arrested. Two inside the building, and two others outside as they waited there, loooking in through the windows at the police and their arrested comrades. Police pulled out their tasers and "shot" them in the air, and were obviously enjoying the fun.

This is reasonable accommodation. This is what it's all about. Hearings thoughout Quebec where the state legitimized the most crazy racist and anti-semitic conspiracy theories, thanking bigots as they make their submissions, making it clear that if nothing else, there is not thought of not accomodating racism.

When the hearings come to Montreal, it is no surprise that they get protested. It is no surprise that activists come out to denounce them.

Now, as i already mentioned i have no internet access. On top of that, i had ot go out of town, so i was not at the follow up demonstration scheduled for last night. i hope there were lots of people there, because it strikes me that the police made an error in attacking people. By marring the second Montreal hearings with arrests and gratuitous violence, there is an opportunity to rip a hole in the democratic mystification surrounding these hearings. Hopefully, this opportunity will be/has been capitalized on.

While today some people have difficulty denouncing the hearings, the idea of "no platform for racists" being less easy when the mass media and democratic politicians are the ones supporting this crap, in the future it will be of obvious importance how one responded to the fragmentation of (social-democratic, "sovereignist" sections of) the Quebec left and the consolidation of a racist political pole in 2007.

What follows is the rpeport from the No One Is Illegal blog:

At least 75 protesters gathered in the lobby of the Montreal Congress Center, before proceeding past security guards upstairs, near the hearing room. The protest was well heard inside by participants. After more than 90 minutes of protesting outside the hearing, at least 20 police officers entered to remove demonstrators. During the police attack, uniformed officers pushed and punched protesters, and used batons; several police had also drawn their taser guns. The protesters included small children, as well as elders, who were pushed.

-- Police attack and arrest anti-racist migrant justice protesters at Bouchard-Taylor Commission

-- Protest and speak-out against the commission to continue on Thursday

MEDIA REQUESTS: Contact Leila Pourtavaf at 514-994-4595

MONTREAL,
Wednesday, November 27, 2007 -- Last night, No One Is Illegal-Montreal and
allies began pickets and speak-outs against the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on
"reasonable accommodation".

A statement on the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, and the racist "reasonable
accommodation" debate, is available here.

At least 75 protesters gathered in the lobby of the Montreal Congress Center, before proceeding past security guards upstairs, near the hearing room. The protest was well heard inside by the some 190 participants.

After more than 90 minutes of protesting outside the hearing, at least 20 police officers entered to remove demonstrators. The protesters proceeded back to the main lobby of the Congress Center, where security had earlier said the protest could continue unimpeded. But, after an eviction order, protesters began to leave. Without provocation, police targeted individuals for arrest.

During the police attack, uniformed officers pushed and punched protesters, and used batons; several police had also drawn their taser guns. The protesters included small children, as well as elders, who were pushed.

Ironically, one officer, who didn't have ID, identified himself as "Stante". When asked if he was Giovanni Stante, the officer said "yes". Giovanni Stante was implicated in the murder of Jean-Pierre Lizotte in 1999. More background info available here: http://www.ainfos.ca/02/aug/ainfos00058.html

During the speak-out outside the Commission, demonstrators addressed issues like poverty, police brutality, racism, immigration status and more, thru speeches, music and spoken word.

Photos and updates from the Commission pickets will be posted at http://nooneisillegal-montreal.blogspot.com

No One Is Illegal and allies refuse to be intimidated by police attacks, and will return to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission this Thursday for another picket and speak-out outside the commission. The protest will begin at 6:30pm at the Montreal Congress Center at the corner of Viger and de Bleury (near metro Place d'armes).

For more info:
No One Is Illegal-Montreal
514-848-7583 – noii-montreal@resist.ca
http://nooneisillegal-montreal.blogspot.com

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

NOII Actions Against "Reaonable Accommodation" Hearings, Nov. 27 & 29

Print PDF

::::::::::::::::::::
NO TO RACISM, XENOPHOBIA AND SEXISM!
Denounce the racist Bouchard-Taylor Commission
Solidarity across borders, not "reasonable accommodation"
:::::::::::::::::::::

-- PICKETS AND SPEAK-OUTS --
TUESDAY, November 27, 6pm
&
THURSDAY, November 29, 6pm
- in front of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission at the Palais de Congrès, corner of Viger and de Bleury
- by metro: exit at metro Place d'armes; stay inside and enter the Palais des Congrès directly).


No One Is Illegal-Montreal and allies are organizing pickets and speak-outs outside the Bouchard-Taylor Commission's public forums in Montreal next November 27 and 29. We encourage you to join us in large numbers.

The Bouchard-Taylor Commission has been a forum for racists and bigots for the past several weeks. The Commission itself is based on a fundamentally racist premise, which is to stand judgment of immigrant communities. This Commission, sanctioned by the state, is a process of submission, whereby minority populations are forced to justify their very existence in Quebec.

Join us for a speak-out and picket outside the Commission, as we share our struggles of resistance to poverty, precarity, racial profiling, police brutality, war, capitalism and gender oppression. Instead of "reasonable accommodation" we will share our perspectives of organizing against borders, for free movement and status for all.

INFO: 514-848-7583 – noii-montreal@resist.ca
http://nooneisillegal-montreal.blogspot.com

-> If you plan on attending the pickets and speak-out, get in touch for more info.

-> Endorse the No One Is Illegal statement on reasonable accommodation which is linked here

et en français:

::::::::::::::::::::
NON AU RACISME, À LA XÉNOPHOBIE ET AU SEXISME!

- Dénoncez le racisme et la Commission Bouchard-Taylor!
- Oui à la "solidarité sans frontières", non au débat sur les "accommodements raisonnables".
::::::::::::::::::::

-- LIGNES DE PIQUETAGE ET TRIBUNES PUBLIQUES --
MARDI le 27 novembre à 18h
&
JEUDI le 29 novembre à 18h

- devant la Commission Bouchard-Taylor au Palais des Congrès de Montréal, coin Viger et Bleury
- pour vous y rendre: métro Place-d'Armes, restez dans la station de métro et prenez la sortie qui donne directement sur le Palais des Congrès)


Le collectif Personne n'est illégal-Montréal et des allié-es organisent des lignes de piquetage et des tribunes publiques devant les audiences publiques de la Commission Bouchard-Taylor à Montréal les 27 et 29 novembre prochain.

Depuis plusieurs semaines, la Commission Bouchard-Taylor sert de forum public pour racistes. La Commission elle-même est basée sur une prémisse fondamentalement raciste, celle de faire le procès des communautés immigrantes. Cette Commission, sanctionnée par l'État, est un processus de soumission, par lequel les populations minoritaires se voient obligées de justifier leur existence même au Québec.

Joignez-vous aux tribunes publiques et aux lignes de piquetage qui auront lieu à l'extérieur de la Commission. Ensemble, nous partagerons nos histoires de lutte et de résistance face à la pauvreté, la précarité, le profilage racial, la brutalité policière, la guerre, le capitalisme et l'oppression. Plutôt que de discuter d'"accommodements raisonnables", nous parlerons de mobilisation contre les frontières, pour la liberté de mouvement et pour des papiers pour toutes et tous.

-> Pour plus d'information: 514-848-7583 – noii-montreal@resist.ca
http://nooneisillegal-montreal.blogspot.com

-> Vous pouvez également appuyer la déclaration de Personne n'est illégal
sur les accommodements raisonnables

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Pauline Marois, the PQ's "Quebec Identity Bill" and Divided Strategies on the Radical Left

Print PDF

Pauline Marois: white woman on a mission

On October 18 Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois proposed a new piece of legislation, Bill 195, the "Quebec Identity Act."

This piece of legislation would create two classes of citizen within Quebec. You would have Canadian citizens, and then within this group you would have a second set, those who would pass a French exam and pledge allegiance to the Quebec nation.

Only those in this separate group would have the right to run in provincial, municipal and school board elections, or address petitions to the national assembly. Obviously, once this second tier of citizenship was established it could be tied to any number of other rights or privileges.

A bit of background perhaps...

For those from elsewhere: Pauline Marois is the head of the Parti Quebecois, which has revolved through the provincial government in Quebec (taking turns with the Liberals) for over thirty years now. When i was growing up people still talked about the PQ as if it were a progressive party, and many leftists a generation older than me still feel that way. And at one point in time there was some truth to this, as the PQ combined social democracy with an officially unracist nationalism.

(Of course, there were those who were clear on the actually racist underpinnings of the nationalist project, and the bankruptcy of social democracy, even back in the seventies.)

The PQ jettisoned social democracy early on, but continued to pay it lip service whenever this helped to rally the troops. It similarly rejected those separatist strategies which would upset the North American capitalist applecart - the PQ when first elected disappointed many people by not declaring independence, rather it would hold referenda asking for a specific mandate to "enter into negotiations" on the subject, or else later to establish a "sovereign" state which would retain all of the colonialist and capitalist hallmarks of the present "un-sovereign" one.

This watering down of both the left-wing and separatist elements in the party led to further confusion between these two different aspects of its program, and to the development of a "left" within the party which saw its "leftism" as having as much to do with being more nationalistic as with being more committed to social democracy or "socialism".

All of which is in a sense irrelevant, or at least of purely historical interest at this point.

The year two thousand and seven can be seen as a turning point, a watershed of sorts in Quebec politics, as certain (decades old) changes in the class structure and the demographic balance finally found their corresponding political expression.

The PQ, which has at all times since the early seventies been either the government or the official opposition, was relegated to being a third rate rump party in the spring elections. Under the blandly center-right leadership of Andre Boisclair, the endless watering down of its nationalist content and the final erasure of its left-wing pretensions brought about the predictable results, as the party was eclipsed by the more openly and honestly right-wing and xenophobic ADQ.

Following the March elections, which were preceded by a wave of media-instigated racism around the "reasonable accommodation" soap opera, the PQ was confronted with a necessity to act, and act boldly, or risk permanent eclipse.

Boisclair resigned, and longtime party-insider Pauline Marois - who had already failed in two previous attempts to run for party leader - won the leadership by acclamation.

The task immediately confronting Marois's PQ has been to win back voters who had drifted to the ADQ, and the way in which this is to be achieved is to further imitate the latter. So it is that "sovereignty" has been put on the back burner, replaced with the same amorphous, and essentially racist, concept of nationalism as that put forward by Dumont's ADQ.

What we have seen since has been a calculated and deliberately public embrace of xenophobia, a public relations strategy of which Bill 195 is simply the latest and most obvious example.

Marois racist "Quebec Identity Bill" has been denounced privately and publicly by all manner of establishment voiceboxes. Including many longtime PQ supporters. It has been declared illegal, unconstitutional, unacceptable and a betrayal of all kinds of things good people hold dear.

In conversation, many point to the surrounding context of the racist reasonable accommodation hearings, and say that given this context, now is certainly not the time for any such piece of divisive legislation.

Which is a really curious criticism, if you think about it.

Marois obviously put forward this piece of racist legislation because of the surrounding "reasonable accommodation" shit. She is well aware of what she is doing: riding the wave. The fact that "to ride a wave" in politics is also to contribute to it, is no skin off her back.

The criticism that "this is not the time" begs a certain question, namely when would the right time be to legally establish two classes of citizenship?

This confusion says something about the mixed up ideas and unfinished thoughts which make up the left of the nationalist project, or also those leftists whose understanding of nationalism bleeds into sympathy.

The particular kind of racism which has popped up all over Quebec this past year bears perverted witness to changes in the class structure of Quebec and changing meaning of nationalism here over the past forty years. What has been going on is an example of what we discussed last August, the way in which "Quebecois nationhood" plays a role in people's consciousness similar to "whiteness" in the united states, and as such racism is the likely response to social crises and tensions:

But where this increasing similarity is relevant is that white Québecois – and most especially nationalists – are liable to resist this globalized capitalism in ways that have more in common with white US workers than with the radical labour movement of the 70s. (Never mind the Patriotes!) Pat Buchanan-style, not Malcolm X-style, if you know what i mean: with an increased openness to racist demagogy and national chauvinism. Even (or perhaps especially) amongst people who admire Che, loathe Bush, and consider themselves to be social-democrats or even “socialists.”

Today the mandate to put immigrants in their place, to "let them know who's boss", runs like a knife through every political grouping, of both left and right. Quietly, often unreported in the media, and loudly, with banner headlines, individuals and groups are positioning and repositioniing themselves around this question, conveniently labeled "reasonable accommodation."

Marois has risked alienating many of the PQ's longtime supporters, but it's a risk she is wise to take. The PQ can't survive indefinitely on nostalgia for the Quebec nationalism of thirty years ago. It can't attract voters based on what their class interests used to be.

Chances are most who are scandalized by Marois' bill will continue to support the PQ anyway. And among those broad swathes of society who have come to identify more and more with a certain style of racism, the PQ can only gain.

Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of her proposal, a Leger marketing poll clearly showed how she had played her cards right: 35% felt she was the leader who best defended the "Quebecois identity" (as opposed to 30% for Dumont and 18% for Charest) and 52% of francophones supported Bill 195 (38% opposed).

On the left, two different anti-racist positions seem to exist in regards to the ongoing "reasonable accommodation" racism. For want of better terms, let's call them the "anti-racism through secularism" and the "pluralist anti-racism" positions.

The "anti-racism through secularism" position has been adopted by certain people in NEFAC, and in l'aut journal, and in the historically "progressive" sections of the nationalist movement.

Noting that the "reasonable accommodation" brouhaha centers on religious practices of certain racialized groups, these people argue that the best way to defuse the rise in racism is to expose it for what it is. They propose doing this by insisting on greater secularism in all spheres of life and for all religions. These people agree that Islam, Judaism and Hinduism should not be catered to, but wish to deracialize the issue by also insisting that Christianity be pushed out of the public sphere. Muslim women not allowed to wear hijab, Jews not allowed to wear kippa, Sikhs not allowed to wear a turban, Christians not allowed to wear a crucifix, etc.

This position, spelled out for instance in some of the comments left on my blog here,
is an organic expression of the historical secularism of the Quebecois left, a direct consequence of the role the church had in propping up corrupt and oppressive governments for 150 years in this province. It also caries with it the imprimatur of the Quebecois feminist movement, which is very much the sister of the left nationalist movement that emerged here in the 1960s.

The second anti-racist position, that of "pluralist anti-racism", has been elaborated by the (maoist) Revolutionary Communist Party and various anti-authoritarian groups based in Montreal like Solidarity Across Borders and No One Is Illegal, who just today spelled out their position condemning (amongst other things), the fact that "so-called progressives and feminists have used the [Bouchard-Taylor] Commission platform to promote their own sophisticated brand of racism."

The pluralist position challenges without compromise the idea that the State or para-state institutions like trade unions or school boards should have any power to regulate or control how immigrants (or anyone else) expresses their culture or religious feelings. The pluralist position does not actually state that concerns about religious fundamentalism and sexism are red herrings, but at the same time it does not address these.

Despite the serious differences between these two positions, it is striking how little debate or criticism there has been between them. This is an example of the fragmentation of the radical left, and even of the anarchist section thereof, where the "pluralist" camp is very much based in Montreal, and seems to have weak ties to the francophone working class.

The "anti-racism through secularism" position strikes me as wrongheaded through and through. It seems to be a case of instrumentalizing racism rather than opposing it outright. i write that knowing some people who hold this position, and knowing them to be sincere comrades and anti-racists. But this is a point on which we disagree.

Mario Dumont and the ADQ rode the wave while making it, and did so to great success this spring, catapulting the "fringe" party into the center of Quebec politics. Pauline Marois has shown that she understands how this game is played, she has upped the ante, and unlike those mired in the past she's giving the ADQ a run for their money - and she may just come out ahead.

These people are neither stupid not confused. Opposing them is our task. We need to move in that direction.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Reasonable Accommodation Hearings: On the creation of a Muslim boogeywoman

Print PDF

On September 28 Christine Pelchat of the Quebec Council on the Status of Women proposed that the provincial government forbid public employees from wearing religious clothing - not only the Muslim headscarf but also the Jewish kippa, though, surprise surprise, crucifixes on necklaces would be ok because they're not immediately visible!

The Council, for those of you from elsewhere, is not a feminist group: it is a government body. Pelchat is a seasoned politician, having served as a Liberal MP in the eighties and early nineties. More recently she was head of staff for the Minister of Public Security at the time that Mohamed Anas Bennis was murdered by Montreal police and then head of staff for the Minister of the Family and the Elderly prior to her current stint at the Quebec Status of Women.

The proposal came a few days after Lise Bourgault's call to ban all religious clothing in any public place at all. Bourgault is a former Conservative Federal MP, currently mayor of the small town of Brownsburg-Chatham about an hour's drive northwest of Montreal. Her statement was full of the geographic anxieties of those outside out of the dynamic metropolitan centers, as she complained of going to the (Greek) Adonis market in Laval and seeing women in veils walking behind their husbands.

Such recommendations are racist, but to just say so is not enough. It's important to take a look at why they are racist. Not least because this racism is framed in anti-sexist terms.

Pelchat for instance preceded her recommendation with the bland proposition that gender equality trumps freedom of religion, which is uncontroversial and correct but seems to have put some people off their guard as to what came next. (How else to explain the fact that Pelchat's words won accolades from NEFAC Quebec City at the same time as they were embraced by provincial premier Jean Charest?)

Pelchat's proposition is racist because she has claimed the right to decide for women of other cultures how to define their own oppression and their own liberation.

In the proper context there is nothing racist with one person telling another their opinion, that they think this or that in their culture is problematic. We all come from fucked up cultures, and most of our cultures are getting more fucked up with every passing year.

But Pelchat is calling upon the State - a State controlled by white men in the service of capitalism - to suppress and repress those immigrant women who disagree with her.

What i find odious is not that she has said gender equality should take precedence over people's religions. It is rather the implication that in order for it to do so her (whitened and enlightened) freedom of conscience should take precedence over that of immigrant women. She'll be the big sister making the call for the wayward little girls who don't know any better.

There's a few aspects of all this i've been mulling over, so after a couple of weeks let's see if i can get them down...

1. Le Québec aux Québecois! (note the masculine...)

This hullabaloo about headscarves is largely a pissing contest to remind folks about who is in charge in Quebec. The headscarf has become a symbol, not of women's status, but of one's relationship to the State and to the "mainstream".

The point is to establish that Quebec has a culture, and that this culture has roots in the Roman Catholic French Canadian experience. Thus churches and crosses are part of "our" heritage. Lipstick and halter tops are part of where "we" are at now. Parts of "our" identity.

Which is why you won't find people like Pelchat banning sexist songs from school kids' ipods, or banning cosmetics or skirts or other gendered pieces of clothing from the civil service. Certainly you won't find the latest sexist production from Hollywood pulled from the province's theaters.

That's because this is a false anti-sexism, a pseudo-feminist fig leaf meant to cover up the real source of anxiety.

(In this regard the anarchist Workers Solidarity Movement were right on the mark when they noted that "For women who freely choose to wear the Islamic headscarf, it can be difficult to take being told you are oppressed for wearing it from a culture where around 5% of all females spend their teens puking over a toilet bowl so that they can look like Kate Moss.")

This concern with defining "our" culture is so pressing because the Quebec economy is increasingly dependent on immigrant labour, both within the formal economy but even more so for social reproduction, as people of colour are filling the gaps created by the feminist revolution of the twentieth century. La revanche du berceau is a double edged sword, and it is no longer sufficient or even relevant whether or not the children of white francophone Quebeckers assimilate or not... for Quebec to persist as a cultural-political entity immigrants need to assimilated into the Nation as quickly and seamlessly as possible.

The flipside to the ongoing de-settlerization (or will it be re-settlerization?) of Quebec and Canada is an increased emphasis on identity, on defining who "we" are, and insisting that others integrate into "us".

That this is felt most strongly by those within the white nations who have reaped the least benefits from imperialism is one of the cruel ironies of capitalism. Of course people living far away from the centers of power feel the most vulnerable. Of course they worry the most about being supplanted by this new proletariat. Of course they holler the loudest.

It is in this context that to not wear hijab - a decision a majority of Muslim women continue to make - is being transformed into a pledge of allegiance. A visible sign that a woman is "ok," is "one of us," or at least is willing to head in our direction. She won't raise her children to challenge "us" for "our" State, "our" economy, "our" cultural hegemony.

& wearing one, in turn, is being transformed into a statement of defiance.

(That this debate centers on women is only logical - it is immigrant women who will play a key role in determining the identity of immigrant children, the proletariat of tomorrow.)

2. Reasonable Accommodation Hearings: Wind in Racist Sails

The reasonable accommodation hearings provide the context behind this crap, and the are a brilliant set-up if i ever saw one.

Just prior to this spring's provincial elections the right-wing ADQ (Quebec Democratic Action) and media outlets decided to play the culture card, fomenting a debate about "reasonable accommodation." The term was stripped of its actual legal meaning, and became shorthand for "immigrant culture" and the perceived erosion of the traditional ethnic pecking order.

There were shock-horror stories about Jews enforcing kosher rules at a Montreal hospital, and forcing a gym to install tinted windows. Others about Muslims getting men banned from birthing classes for pregnant women, or insisting on the gender of driving instructors.

In each case the details proved less scandalous that the demagogues presented them, and in many cases in fact these were reasonable measures taken to accommodate people. Nevertheless, the question had become a political hot potato, and before you could say "kulturkampf" girls were getting banned from sports events for wearing hijab and white folks were up in arms about the few dozen women in Quebec who wear niqab being allowed to vote.

The ruling Liberal party was in a quandry. On the one hand, the Liberals cannot win an election without support from the Quebecois majority, on the other hand the Liberals are the party which maintains absolute hegemony within Quebec's minority communities, and which has the job of integrating these communities within the federalist camp.

The solution was typical: set up a roaming commission headed by two fancy intellectuals to deal with the issue.

Clearly, the Liberals hoped that in so doing the would defuse the ADQ's new hobby horse. Yet from an anti-racist perspective this ploy is bound to fail, in fact it is bound to make things worst.

Let's be clear: when this is all over commissioners Taylor and Bouchard are going to come up with some mildly inoffensive nostrums about tolerance, a "Quebec model" of integration, and the need for greater understanding so that we can all get along. It is conceivable that they wrote - or were given - their final recommendations before the traveling circus even began. The commission is intended to give everyone the appearance of consultation, but really there is not much that is open to debate.

The reason this will make things worst is two-fold.

By setting up a commission on this question the very debate on "reasonable accommodation" is legitimized. As one intervention after another has made clear, everyone knows that this debate is really about the status of immigrants in tomorrow's Quebec. As such, the commission is just a soap-box for xenophobia, making it seem like the position of racists and that of immigrants are somehow equally valid.

Furthermore, the commission will not defuse anything. Once "the people" have had their say and "the eggheads" ignore them, or only pay them lip service, the stage will be set for a new round of demagogy. As long as they remain in opposition the ADQ and Pauline Marois' new "PQ identitaire" will be able to position themselves as the only authentic voices of the people. More worrisome though, this combination of racism and feeling of being ignored by those in power will prepare the ground for the seeds of fascism, of a new round of far right mobilization and organization.

For the moment this may not be such a bad thing so far as the Liberals are concerned. While they are on the defensive, they are still ahead in comparison with the PQ, which was decimated by the rise of the ADQ in the last elections. Now, with PQ leader Pauline Marois' turn towards a nationalism based on "identity", the PQ and ADQ might potentially be played off against each other in subsequent elections - or so the Liberals must be hoping.

Immigrants, people of colour and other "foreigners" will be the only ones with anything to lose.

Or at least that is what i see down the road.



3. Freedom of Religion is a Red Herring

The ADQ, the Liberals and the racist media have all been very careful to frame this debate in terms of "gender equality vs. freedom of religion."

Take a moment to think of why.

Freedom of religion is a strawman. It's something progressive people are used to "supporting" without really thinking about it, the way reformists support all kinds of bourgeois "freedoms", and so it's a bicycle we can be tricked into riding without noticing that both tires are flat.

To be clear: freedom of conscience is an important thing to struggle for. The ability to think things out for yourself and to act on these thoughts is a prerequisite for political action, for radical theory, for revolution and liberation.

Similarly, opposition to racism is vital. Capitalism requires the constant incorporation of subject peoples, of communities which are marked out for proletarianization by way of their putative "racial" identity. And other communities which are slated for privilege on condition that they play the role of overseer. That today we are told it is a matter of culture, and a hundred years ago we were told it was a matter of biology, indicates a change in scientific discourse, not in political facts. Opposing this racism is an essential component of opposing capitalism and all forms of oppression.

But problems arise when these two important values are shoehorned into the concept of "freedom of religion."

Religions are codified collections of rules and beliefs, bearing all the marks of their contradictory histories and struggles, both internal and external. Freedom of religion can be included within freedom of conscience, but on its own it negates it. The former privileges certain beliefs over others, whereas the latter implies that the freedom to believe in god must go hand in hand with the freedom of apostasy and the freedom of blasphemy.

Based on such a narrow freedom, no mobilization against the racist "reasonable accommodation" debate will succeed. Rather, the oppressed will be pitted against each other, or pushed into schizophrenic positions of favouring one aspect of their identity over others (feminist or believer? queer or Muslim? atheist or immigrant?)

The effect of such a false dichotomy will not be to actually support the rights of women, but rather to inhibit people from uncovering the actual relationship between patriarchy, racism and capitalism.

As radicals we have to look at every mobilization as a stepping stone to the next. Until eventually we get to fight for something worth keeping. If today's struggles prepare us for tomorrow's, what kind of preparation is a defense of religious orthodoxy going to prepare us for? Solidarity with whom, and under what conditions?

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Tonight: Rejecting the "Reasonable Accommodation" Commission

Print PDF

A network of individuals involved in various groups / organizations / collectives have been in discussion throughout recent weeks concerning the Quebec 'debate' on 'Reasonable Accommodation'.

This past weekend members of Al-Hidaya Association, Tadamon! Montreal, No One is Illegal, Solidarity Across Borders, Immigrant Workers Center and individuals met to discuss the possibility of a wide range of responses and actions to counter the discourse that is occurring in Quebec. During this meeting many people expressed the concern that the issues raised in the hearings stem not only from ignorance but also from racism. They felt the importance OF addressing this racism, particularly within the larger political context, in Quebec, Canada and internationally, in which the 'war on terror' and Canada's role in Afghanistan is hotly contested.

We invite organisations and individuals to bring proposals of actions, protest, popular education strategies, and ideas to this meeting so that we can coordinate a campaign that includes a wide breadth of responses.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
October 15th, 2007, 7pm
Center Communautaire Musulman de Montreal [CCMM]
3300 Cremazie East, corner of St. Michel
Metro: Saint-Michel.
Bus 67 North, Until Cremazie
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Background on the Reasonable Accommodation debate: Currently, the debate as we know it was triggered by municipal town council of HŽrouxville passing a "code of conduct" that made many assumptions about the lives and practices of Muslim and Sikh peoples. Over the past year, the tone of this debate carried into many different spheres of Quebec society: women were stopped from wearing hijabs while playing sports, the Sikh kirpan 'debate' was brought back into the fore, healthcare preferences for Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu people were questioned. This is a small range of examples of the practices that were brought into question in Quebec with a great deal of media attention and controversy.

In response to the growing debate around Reasonable Accommodation, Premier Jean Charest appointed a two man commission to investigate the issue and report back by 31 March 2008. Its formal title is the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences.

The commission is holding consultation in most regions of Quebec, including Rouyn-Noranda, Sept-Iles and Saguenay, Que., where few of the tensions which sparked the commission exist because the populations consist of relatively culturally homogenous communities living alongside indigenous communities. The Commission will listen to individuals, organizations and experts on Quebec identity, religion, and 'integration'of so-called cultural communities. The Commission will reach Montreal on:

• November 27th: FR. Hearing. 7pm - 9:30pm
• November 29th: EN. Hearing. 7pm - 9:30pm

For more information on the hearing:

• Background
• 'Reasonable Accommodation' Hearings
• Download an interview with Nazila Bettache of No One is Illegal
• No One is Illegal statement on 'Reasonable Accommodation'

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Speaking of St-Jerome...

Print PDF

Immigrants are “buying their way in” to Quebec,
Lise Provencher of St. Jérôme tells Gérard Bouchard and
Charles Taylor at hearings last night,
and Jews are “trampolines of money in the world.”

Well yeah timing is everything...

i haven't been blogging about the Bouchard-Taylor roving racist rendezvous, mainly because i thought i should wait til had time to provide something a little less than sketchy.

This is the "reasonable accommodation" commission, headed by two mildly liberal intellectuals, which was initiated by the provincial Liberal government just before this spring's elections in an effort to take some of the wind out of the sails of the more openly racist ADQ political party. It has started its audiences in the monocultural and conservative regions of Quebec, and so far at least it has fulfilled my expectations of being a forum for people to vent their racist phlegm.

i predict that - regardless of the "liberal" or "progressive" or "inclusive" conclusions Taylor and Bouchard might come up with - the entire exercise will at best amount to one (little) step forward and ten (big) steps back, as it serves to normalize racist discourse all under the guise of letting people "say out loud what everyone is thinking" (who wins the prize of telling me who that quote is from?)

At best racism and anti-racism will appear as two equally valid sets of opinion, at worst this will be one of those circuses where racist comes to be identified with "the people" and anti-racism is associated with snobbish intellectuals. And who loses then? You know who.

In any case, yesterday the commission was in St-Jerome, and here i am finding myself blogging about anti-communist police repression in St-Jerome today. Coincidences coincidences. As i mentioned in my previous entry, towns like St-Jerome have real potential for political organizing, but are neglected by most activists. Even people from these areas generally move to "the city" as soon as they can, with the end result that some towns have a bigger and more visible far right scene than they do a far left. And this suits the cops fine, which is probably a part of why they attacked the communist demo in St-Jerome on August 11th.

In any case, i'm all over the place i know, but here is an article from today's Montreal Gazette to give an idea of why we should be intervening in places like St-Jerome, why we can't surrender them to the right.

Laurentian residents vent anger with Hasidim
St. Jérome session becomes platform for bashing distinctive Orthodox sect
JEFF HEINRICH THE GAZETTE
ST. JÉRÔME –

In the 1st century AD, St. Jerome translated the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin and pulled a thorn from the paw of a lion.

Two millennia later, a travelling commission on “reasonable accommodation” of religious minorities in Quebec made a stop yesterday in the Laurentian town named after him and tried to interpret the outcry of French Canadians over a new thorn in their side: Jews.

Ultra-orthodox Jews, more precisely – the Hasidim.

In the Laurentians, where more than 500,000 people live, the Hasidim are very much on people’s minds, judging from those who spoke at last night’s open-mike session.

“We’re playing the game of ... the great rabbis, with their archaic values,” resident JeanPierre Bouvrette told a packed hall of 175 people in downtown St. Jérôme, 60 kilometres northwest of Montreal.

“There are a lot of arguments, and we get along less and less,” said Val Morin resident Roger Cuerrier, complaining about the “ever-growing number” of Hasidic Jews in his village – and their “unreasonable” demands.

“The last shot they directed at us, was they set themselves up next to the baseball field and asked us to shut off the lights when they pray on Saturday evenings,” he said.

“It’s really a mentality that’s separate,” St. Hippolyte resident Lise Casavant said of the Hasidism, adding that immigrants should sign a new Quebec citizenship charter “or choose another province,” a sentiment several other speakers also evoked.

John Saywell, of Argenteuil, said when he hears a Hasidic Jewish leader speaking only in English on the TV news, he thinks it’s wrong. The community should make the effort to speak French, he said.

And Lise Provencher, of St. Jérôme, said immigrants are “buying their way in” to Quebec and that Jews are the worst because they’re “the most powerful. ... It’s always been said that the Jews are the trampoline of money in the world.” After she spoke, the crowd applauded.

A rare few last night blamed themselves as French Canadians.

“The main reason we’re here today is that we stopped having children,” said Loyola Leroux, of Prévost.

Listening impassively from the front of the room were the commission’s co-chairmen, historian Gérard Bouchard and philosopher Charles Taylor, with his left arm in a sling. Taylor is recovering from surgery that sidelined him for the first two weeks of the commission’s roadshow. He made his first appearance last night, saying that during his convalescence he’d been “burning” to attend.

The two men knew the Laurentians would be where they’d hear about the Hasidic question. The last few years have been full of Jewish news in the region, none of it good:

In late June, after hearing the Miramont sur le Lac resort in St. Adolphe d’Howard had been sold to a group of Hasidic Jews for $3.5 million, village manager Michel Binette complained he didn’t want to see the Miramont become “ghettoized.” After Jewish groups complained, St. Adolphe mayor Pierre Roy apologized for Binette’s remarks.

In Val David last June, a series of suspicious fires hit the town, particularly in the neighbourhood of Préfontaine, where about 50 families from the Satmar group of Hasidic Jews have cottages. The residents said they have been a frequent target of vandalism.

In 2005, the village of Val Morin spent nearly $100,000 in court against a group of the Belz sect of Hasidic Jews that converted two residences into a religious school and a synagogue. The Quebec Superior Court ruled in favour of the municipality, which said the Hasidim were contravening zoning laws. An appeal was heard last week and a decision is pending.

Hasidic Jews stand out by their separateness – even last night.

There were none in the crowd to defend the community.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

The Freedom to Wear What You Want

Print PDF

Men should not be telling women how to dress.

In fact, let me extend that: people should not be telling other people how to dress.

The only reason why i might dislike the hijab, niqab and burka is because i know that around the world many women are forced to wear them, this obligation often justified by a sexist and heterosexist logic regarding male sexuality (i.e. the idea that unveiled women are responsible for men getting all hot and bothered, and that this horniness leaves guys no choice but to act inappropriately).

But i also know - from my own personal experience - that clothing can symbolize different things to different people. An oppressive patriarchal symbol - let's say high heels and make-up - can become a symbol of resistance in other situations... for instance when a man chooses to wear them, or when to wear such femme attire means defying the priest or rabbi or imam.

Likewise, the entire punk movement took on semi-militaristic and violent imagery, even by so-called "peace punks." i think both Sid and Siouxie deserved to be punched in the face for playing with swastikas, but i'd be the moron if i thought they were actual nazis. (Muslim punks in the novel The Taqwacores wear israeli flags for much the same effect.)

I can remember when some comrades argued that drag queens should be banned from the movement because they were dressing in a "sexist" fashion, and i can remember when certain peace groups would not allow punks to join because of their "sado-masochistic" clothing (i won't even go into what actual sado-masochists got told!)

So i'm obviously not a Muslim woman, and none of the women i know wear niqabs or burkas. But i'm willing to bet that in the current racist climate gripping Quebec, more than a few women are feeling they should cover up - not because some misogynistic cleric tells them to, but because a bunch of misogynists from the white dominant society are telling them not to.

Defiance may not be the most sophisticated emotion, but it certainly is easy to understand, and impossible for me to condemn.

In fact, i'd written the above before reading the following article from today's Montreal Gazette, in which a young Muslim woman explains that if she doesn't wear niqab, and in the current context if she did she would be scared... and as a result, she is planning on wearing the niqab in future.

Defiance.

So what's someone like me to think? Not only me, but most of my family and friends would be killed under sharia law, so i certainly don't want to encourage the rise of right-wing Islam. The fact that i don't live in an Islamic society, that i'm stuck in a different corner of the capitalist patriarchy, doesn't give me a pass to forget the fact that around the world thousands upon thousands of brave and beautiful comrades have been murdered by the Islamic right.

Yet still: in Quebec as elsewhere in North America, the "anti-sexism" of Bush and Harper (and Charest) has about as much progressive content as the anti-zionism of Ahmadinejad or Nasrallah. And to side with the "secular" State in its attacks on Muslim women is to feed the dynamic tension that exists between "sexually liberated imperialism" and "patriarchal anti-imperialism", squabbling siblings who puff themselves up with declarations of hatred for each other while actually concentrating their fire on those of us who hate them both.

All i can propose is that with which i started: nobody should be telling other people how to dress. Most especially, no man should be telling women how to dress. No ayatollah, no imam, no rabbi, no priest and no "chief returning officer."

Here's the article from the morning paper:

‘IF I WAS WEARING A FACE VEIL … I’D BE SCARED TO VOTE’

RULING DENOUNCED BY MUSLIM GROUP
Controversy is unfounded, activist says – women remove their veils when necessary

ANDY BLATCHFORD
CANADIAN PRESS

A Muslim woman says the abrupt change to Quebec election rules for veiled voters will fuel a growing hostility toward Muslim women in the province.

“If I was wearing a face veil I likely wouldn’t go and vote on Monday,” Sarah Elgazzar of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada said in an interview yesterday. “I’d be scared.” A ruling by chief returning officer Marcel Blanchet on Friday means the face of anyone who votes Monday must be visible before a ballot is cast. That includes Muslim women, a scenario Elgazzar believes will keep many at home on election day.

Elgazzar said there has never been a problem with Muslim women who wear face veils.

“These women regularly uncover their faces to identify themselves, and they never asked for any kind of accommodation,” she said. “This controversy kind of hunted them down and they didn’t have anything to do with it.”

The issue blew into the open a few days ago when the Journal de Montréal published a story saying Muslim women could vote tomorrow even if their faces were covered.

Blanchet then changed the rules after he received threatening phone calls and read reports that some citizens were planning to wear masks to the polls.

Elgazzar said Muslim women who wear veils show their faces when necessary, including visits to banks, crossing the border and when dealing with police.

She said the current Quebec environment is “very hostile” toward veiled Muslim women.

“People here have the impression that they (Muslim women) weren’t ready to comply and that they (Quebecers) have won some kind of victory,” she said of Blanchet’s ruling.

Elections Quebec spokesperson Denis Dion said all voters will have to show a piece of photo identification at polling stations. If they don’t have photo ID, they must provide two other pieces of ID and sign a document before being able to vote.

He said there is no guarantee female returning officers will be available to check the identification of veiled Muslim women at polling stations.

Debate over reasonable accommodation of racial, cultural and religious minorities has surfaced several times during the election campaign, with Action démocratique du Québec leader Mario Dumont often leading the charge. Dumont has been hoping to tap into the unease many small-c conservative Quebecers feel about how far the province goes to accommodate ethnic minorities.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Muslim Women: Our New Favourite Scapegoat

Print PDF

Racist and sexist fucking shit.

As i mentioned yesterday, i don't have time for this crap. Which of course doesn't stop it from oozing out of the anus of the capitalist patriarchy. Political diarrhea one might say.

I'm just going to post the following article from today's Montreal Gazette. As i predicted a few weeks ago, racist anxieties (specifically regarding Muslim women) have been exploited by all three contenders in the upcoming Quebec provincial election.

Sad to say.

Here's the article from today's paper:

VEILED THREATS
Quebec’s chief electoral officer has changed the law, obliging everyone who votes to show their face. It’s an extraordinary measure to ensure “crazies” won’t disrupt polling to protest against Muslim women voting in full veil.
ANDY RIGATHE GAZETTE
Worried about the safety of election workers and the prospect of Monday’s vote turning into a “masquerade,” Quebec’s chief electoral officer took the extraordinary step of unilaterally changing the election law yesterday to force everyone who votes to show their face.

And a Muslim group said the entire controversy – which relates to Muslim women who wear full-face veils known as niqabs – has been fabricated by news media outlets that are “fuelling hate” toward Muslims and leaving some members of the community fearing for their safety.

On Thursday, reacting to a newspaper article about voting by niqab-wearing women, chief electoral officer Marcel Blanchet said they would not be required to remove their veils to confirm their identify.

Yesterday, after intense media coverage and threatening phone calls and emails to election workers, Blanchet reversed his stand. Some people on radio call-in shows were also urging Quebecers to turn up at polls in Halloween costumes.

“What’s at stake here is the integrity and serenity of the electoral process,” Blanchet said at a news conference. “It would be extremely damaging if incidents disrupt voting Monday. And it would be even more damaging if there is so much anxiety among some electors that they don’t show up to vote.”

To ensure his own protection, Blanchet said he now travels with two bodyguards.

He said he found it “troubling” that threats caused him to change the electoral law.

“I personally would have preferred not to have to do it, but my priority is to ensure that everything will run normally and that a few or many crazies won’t show up to cause trouble Monday,” Blanchet said.

The episode has some Muslims fearing for their lives, said Salam Elmenyawi, head of the Muslim Council of Quebec.

“If the chief electoral officer needs two bodyguards, imagine the woman in a niqab, how many guards she’s going to need to guard her – at a polling station or even on a street today,” he told The Gazette. “Their lives are under threat right now.”

Elmenyawi said election officials never consulted Muslim leaders about the issue.

Had they, they would have been told niqab-wearing women will show their face for identification purposes, preferably to other women. He estimates 10 to 15 women wearing niqabs might have shown up to vote. Given the controversy, he’s not sure any will vote now.

Elmenyawi said some news media – particularly the Journal de Montréal and its sister TV networks, TVA and LCN, all owned by Quebecor – are fuelling hatred toward Muslims.

The Journal wrote about the issue Thursday, the first news media outlet to do so.

Yesterday, it ran photos of Youppi and people wearing paper bags and Darth Vader or skeleton masks on its front page under the headline: “Masked voting is legal.”

Earlier in the week, the newspaper ran extensive coverage of sugar shacks that welcome Muslims. One eliminated ham from its pea soup. Another allowed Muslim customers to pray on a dance floor.

The LCN all-news channel has been giving extensive coverage to the Journal’s articles.

Mathieu Turbide, assistant managing editor at the Journal de Montréal, said he was surprised by the Muslims’ criticism and noted the “reasonable accommodation” issue is part of the news agenda.

“To suggest we are promoting hate is very extremist and does not correspond with reality,” he said in a phone interview. “We simply decided to look at the Elections Act and ask what would happen if a voter did not want to uncover her face.

“We learned there was a gap in the law, most political leaders confirmed it, and the chief returning officer has just changed the regulations.”

At TVA, which is LCN’s parent network, vice-president (news) Serge Fortin said its coverage was “irreproachable.”

“We followed the Journal story on Thursday and covered the news conference today.

“We have nothing to change. Somebody has an agenda somewhere,” he observed.

But Elmenyawi remains concerned. “This kind of ‘reasonable-accommodation police’ going around manufacturing crises within Quebec society is doing us all harm,” he said.

“The Muslim community is at the receiving end of hate, anger, disgust and indignation – and it’s damaging the social fabric of Quebec society.”

The coverage in Quebecor news outlets – and in some competing ones trying to keep up – is “feeding hysteria, and rash thinking that (Quebec) culture is under attack and in danger from Muslims or Jews who are coming, or whoever it is they’re targeting that day.”

Elmenyawi urged political leaders to calm things by asking those with concerns about “reasonable accommodation” to take them in a “rational, objective way” to the commission Premier Jean Charest created to study the issue. “I’m asking leaders to stand up and say, ‘Enough is enough,’ ” he said.

In Cap aux Meules last night, Charest expressed his satisfaction with the veil ruling. “We agree with the director-general of elections’ decision to use the powers that he has in the law, exceptional powers, to make sure when people vote they are correctly identified,” he said.

He said he doesn’t see the issue as a clash of religious rights with Quebec’s voting system. “I don’t see any collision, really. The issue is quite simple. We just want to identify the right person.”

Action démocratique leader Mario Dumont said he is pleased with the decision. “I had confidence in the director-general of elections,” he told reporters at a campaign stop in St. Eustache.

“Today, he came out with an interpretation of the law that to my mind is what those who enacted the law intended.”

On Thursday, the chief electoral officer had said a fully veiled person would be given the same treatment as a person whose face is covered by a bandage. To vote, she had to declare her identity, sign a sworn statement and either produce documents that confirm her identity or be accompanied by someone who confirms her identity.

If a voter has lost his or her medicare card or has no driver’s licence – both of which have photos – that person can identify themselves under oath before a three-person identification verification panel at every group of polling stations. Under the change announced yesterday, anyone who shows up at that panel must now show their face.

The electoral law allows the chief electoral officer to unilaterally change rules under “exceptional or emergency” circumstances, Blanchet said.

This change applies only to the current election, he said.

Whether someone’s face is visible during voting does not pose a problem in Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta, officials from those three provinces said yesterday. In all three, the only requirement is to be on the list of electors. For those who must register to vote on site, all that is required is proof of identity and address; there is no requirement to present photo ID.

A check of the Elections Canada website reveals there is no requirement for photo ID either to be added to the voters list or to register to vote on site.

ariga@thegazette.canwest.com

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST