Audax- Suggestions for your homework.

Friday, October 10, 2008

August 9, 2008- Freddy Villanueva, 18, was shot dead by police during a late-night confrontation with police in a Montreal North parking lot. The death of Villanueva sparked a riot in the borough.
Dany Villanueva, 22, Freddy Villanueva’s brother, already had a serious criminal record. On the night of the killing, he was playing dice for money knowing that this is illegal. Freddy Villanueva was with him and he began to shout when the police followed the procedure required to immobilize Dany Villanueva.
On his blog, Richard Dupuis challenges the readers with the idea that Dany Villanueva is responsible for the death of his brother, Freddy. Read his blog for more details. (http://richard3.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/mort-de-freddy-villanueva-son-frere-dany-est-il-responsable/).

“Villanueva, burn in hell!”
While on a bus, I saw this image. The person who wrote down these words might know something no one else knows about this case as there is no place for forgiveness in his/her heart.
What made this person feel like this?
It is, obviously, fierce hatred against the riots following the death, hatred against the mentality that leads individuals to such behavior. It is hatred against what some call their constitutional right to question and condemn every single step made by the police.
It is hatred against gang life, gang members and insecurity that dominate Montreal-Nord. It is hatred against the habitual practice of victimizing the criminals and criminalizing the victims.
What happens if every single time a teen, especially non-white, is killed by the police? Should the community start rioting, looting and destroying private and public property?

People have always been superstitious about mentioning the name of a dead person. It was the fear that the dead might come back. Such a belief is traceable all over the world. By wishing for a soul to "rest in peace," people hoped that the spirit would stay “peacefully” within the dead body.
Today, "May his soul rest in peace" is used more as a sign of respect for the dead person rather than the maintenance of a superstition. Even so, cursing the dead remains a strong taboo in our contemporary world.
The fear of speaking ill about the dead can be traced back to Roman times. The Romans strongly believed that doing so the dead were to return as ghosts and haunt the living.
Reading “Villanueva, burn in hell!” was unexpected. I believe that the person who wrote this must find his/her own peace and let it go.
After all, hell might be already here.

Friday, October 10, 2008

The elections are knocking at the door. Some doors are open, others stay closed. Many are tired of “trick or treat”.
Canadians will vote on Tuesday, October the 14th. After the debates (in French and in English), Stephen Harper is leading and not only thanks to his linguistic abilities.
French speakers Gilles Duceppe or Stephan Dion, when it comes to English, are visibly struggling to be coherent. During the English debate, uncomfortable because of the language, their performance was less vivid than during the French debate.
As they were arguing, the candidates did not bring anything new. It was the same, old rhetoric, aiming mainly to discredit the adversary.
Who are the candidates in the 2008 Canadian elections? In addition to Dion and Duceppe, Elizabeth May, a newcomer.
Besides not knowing when to listen and when to speak, the Green Party’s candidate, Elizabeth May, can not represent Canada as a PM as she is politically not mature enough and I did not notice the gram of political talent during the two performances. As her French is simply deplorable (during the French debate she made elementary errors like: « Vous ne comprends pas », « Une question intéressée »,
« Vous avez peut-être souviens », « Les nations premières c’est très importante ». Imagine her having a conversation with Nicholas Sarkozy…) May has no chance in Quebec, as Dion and Duceppe have no chance in the non-French speaking provinces. On the other hand, May doesn’t have the social skills a PM requires in order to conduct or be part of an elegant debate.
She behaved more like a chicken in distress on the shore of the lake, hysterical that her chicks would drown, not knowing that “her chicks” are ducklings…
Dion and Duceppe cannot become Canada’s next PM as their English is simply ludicrous and more ridiculous would be for the Canadian PM to use an interpreter. Representing an English speaking country, the PM is expected to be perfectly fluent in English.
What would you think if the British or Australian PM would be struggling when speaking English?
Who else is on the list of the candidates?
Jack Layton and the actual PM, Stephen Harper. Both anglophones, they were capable of learning French, reaching a good command of it and they are the only two candidates who are truly bilingual.
Personally, I say no to Layton. Why? I smell too many fundamentalist Muslims financially back his campaign. The sweet and sour soup à la Layton doesn’t look appetizing.
In conclusion, the only one remaining on my list is Harper.

November 30, 2007

WHY NOT AN ABORIGINAL, JEWISH, SOUTH AMERICAN OR EUROPEAN HISTORY MONTH TOO?

Canada did it. Canada opened a practice nobody ever thought about: to celebrate the Islamic presence in Canada under the form of the world’s first Islamic History Month (why not called Muslim History Month?). Why such a gift, you might ask? To me it doesn’t seem to be anything but a gift of fear. Our government knows very well what is happening in Europe and is hoping that Muslims in Canada might be bought with such gestures.


Such a gesture is simply questioning its timing, as it comes in the context of “offended”� Muslims by the reasonable accommodation hearings held in Quebec. I see a connection. The raising of Islam in Europe is not a distant theory or a page taken out of the history books. Such a reality, with all aspects included, can not remain unknown to our government and politicians.

Silently, with an Islamic History Month, Canada is hoping to keep the Muslims in a range of comfort given by such official events.

As some began to question the Quebec hearings, as they might trigger similar hearings in the rest of the country, this gift comes as a high level of assurance coming from the government that no matter what those people say in Quebec, Muslims are loved, wanted and their presence highly valued.

Now, a logical question comes: Is there a similar month for other religions or ethnic communities? Not quite. Official recognition of each ethic, cultural, religious or linguistic community’s contribution to Canada is undoubtedly a nice gesture. In this respect, Canada, besides the already well-established Black History Month (celebrated in February in Canada and the USA and October in the UK), has also a South Asian Heritage Month in Canada, celebrated in May. And this comes as, according to the 2001 Census, almost 10 % of Canadians are of Asian descent.

Significant Muslim population begins to move to Canada in the 1970s through emigration. The first census year in which Muslims in Canada were specially included was 1981 and they then numbered 100,000. By 1991 the number had grown to more than 250,000; in 2001, there were almost 600,000.

The Muslim community in Canada has its foundation in the West, where Al-Rashid, the first mosque in North America, was built in Edmonton, Alberta, in 1938. The Canadian Muslims come from all over the Muslim world. Many held or still hold key positions in the Canadian media.

Mohammed Azhar Ali Khan is a former Ottawa Citizen editorial writer. He retired recently after 10 years as a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, deciding refugee asylum cases including dozens from Somalia.

Tarek Fatah (born November 20th, 1949) is a secular Muslim Canadian political activist, writer and TV host. Founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress. Fatah’s advocacy for a separation of religion and state, opposition to Sharia law, and what he calls a “progressive” form of Islam has met with considerable controversy from other Canadian Muslim groups, such as the Canadian Islamic Congress.

Haroon Siddiqui, newspaper journalist, columnist and editorial page editor for Toronto Star, considered by many a Third World apologist. Referring to a Siddiqui column that appeared in March 2001, Robert Fulford wrote, “He found a way to look with a degree of tolerance even on the Taliban’s destruction of ancient Buddhist sculptures in Afghanistan.” Haroon Siddiqui also greets Turkey’s returning to an Islamic country.

So, if some speak about a Zionist media conspiracy, others might be entitled to speak of a Muslim one.

On the Canadian Islamic Congress site, in an article praising Ottawa’s decision to install the Islamic History Month in Canada, Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, says: “ Muslim identity in Canada has been influenced in two major ways; first, there is the country itself — a nation with a comparatively young history (140 years in 2007), occupying a huge and ruggedly diverse land-mass — and secondly, by the self-perceptions of its Muslim immigrants.”
140 years only?! According to this person’s broad knowledge, Canada came into being in 1867! Yes, indeed, Canada became a self-governing country on July 1st, 1867. But this doesn’t mean that Canada’s history as a nation began 140 years ago! According to his judgment, the history of a nation begins with its independence. Thus, Iran’s history as a nation began 1979 (the day the country became a theocratic Islamic Republic state), Norway’s in 1814, and Egypt’s, to end the examples, in 1922, when the country was declared independent from the British rule and it acquired full sovereignty following World War II. So, according to Mr. Elmasry, Canada is older than his native Egypt by 55 years!

Mr. Elmasry, French explorer Samuel de Champlain arrived in 1603 and established the first permanent European settlements at Port Royal in 1605 and QuebecCity in 1608. The Act of Union merged The Canadas into a United Province of Canada in 1840. Do the math. This doesn’t seem to exist in the history books Elmasry has read.

The same Dr. Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Council has declared in a televised interview in 2004 that Israelis over age 18 are a legitimate target for suicide bombers because adult Israelis are required to do military service, thus everyone is a soldier. “They are part of the Israeli army, even if they have civilian clothes,” Elmasry said on The Michael Coren Show. (See http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/10/25/muslimleaders_041025.html )

Elmasry apologized for his remarks as he considered being “misunderstood”, and kept his post as council president, as his letter of resignation was rejected by the board of directors. This was a very clear message of backing up his remarks from the part of the board. What was so multifaceted in his statement to lead to “misunderstandings”?

Certain Muslims believe that their sentences are so sophisticated that they make room to “misunderstandings”, especially when it comes to “non-believers”.

Now, back to 2007, when Ottawa officially proclaimed October to be Islamic History Month in Canada. Since the Muslim community has only a few decades presence in Canada, I was wondering if other older cultural/religious communities have anything similar: for instance, a European History Month in Canada would be a sign of recognition of the centuries old contributions made by European immigrants to the development of this country, culturally, socially and economically.

I am also thinking of the First Nations. After contacting The Assembly of First Nations, I was informed that there is no such thing as First Nations History Month in Canada. Tracy Lavallee, a First Nations woman stated, ”There is no month dedicated to the First Nations in Canada - we do have “National Aboriginal Day”, June 21st, that has been proclaimed by government. It would be nice if Canada would declare some month First Nations history month - this might prompt the various provincial governments to look seriously at having “proper” history taught which ought to include First Nations’ history, contributions, etc.”

What Canada gave the aboriginal people is one day, June 21st, as recognition of their historical presence and contribution to our society. Is it, perhaps, enough?

I have also contacted the Jewish community, and I received a prompt answer from Enza E. Martuccelli, Director of Community Relations for Canadian Jewish Congress, Quebec Region , who stated: ”We have had Yom Hashoah recognized by Parliament and from October through November the Montreal Holocaust Memorial Centre runs a series of programs on the holocaust. The Sephardic community also runs a month long cultural program focusing on their community in Quebec and elsewhere. However no proclamations of the kind that are found on the Muslim History Month website exist for the Jewish community.”

There has been a Jewish population in Canada since the 1700s. The 2001 census lists 370,505 Jews in Canada. In the USA, May was proclaimed in 2006 as Jewish American Heritage Month. Another significant community in Canada is the Christian Orthodox community which numbers 479,620 (2001), counting as 1.6% of the population (the Muslim community 579,640, counting2.0%).

I believe that the Orthodox community is also entitled to be honoured with a History Month. The first Orthodox Church in Canada was erected in 1898, 40 years earlier than the first mosque.

What about the Hispanic community in Canada?

During the Islamic Month, of 31 days, 10 days were without events. As for the events, they were basically a handful, shuffled during 21 days: - Free Public Performances on Qanoun By Dr. George Sawa “- Film: Damascus and the Umayyads, people of the 9th and 10th centuries “- Film: Istanbul, capital of the Ottomans in the 15th and 16th centuries “- Film: Glories of Islamic Art, Part 2; Cairo, the cockpit of the early Islamic struggles between Sunni and Shiia faiths “- Islamic History Month Canada (IHMC): Its Goals, Its Methods, Its Themes “- Cairo, traces of the 12th and 14th centuries “- Eid-ul-Fitr- Canadian Muslims celebrate Eid-ul-Fitr across Canada, ending the Islamic month of Ramadan “- Expo Islamia- Displays from around the Muslim World, books, CDs, DVDs, films on Islamic History, Arts, Architecture, Heritage, Games and Prizes “- The Ottawa Muslim Women’s Organization- Multicultural Show, Dinner & Entertainment “- A Mystical Journey - Sufi Music and other Expression of Devoton from the Muslim World- “- Islamic Civilization - A Very Short History- A presentation by Dr. Jamal Badawi, delivered by Dr. Safaa Fouda “- The Canadian Muslim Artist Ibrahim Shalaby in a Special Solo Show: Longing for the divine - an artistic tapestry “- Islamic Architecture, Science, Art and Spirituality: A Lecture in Celebration of Islamic History Month Canada- By Prof. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Professor of Islamic Studies, George Washington University, Washington DC in his first Canadian Lecture Tour “- Friday October 26th- “National Pink Hijab Day”- to raise funds for breast cancer research “- The Canadian Islamic Congress Annual Ottawa Gala Dinner- with the speech: “Creativity in the Medical Sciences during Medieval Islamic Times”�- by Dr. Ingrid Hehmeyer, MSc, PhD.

Even cancer is opportunity for Dawah
As about the “National Pink Hijab Day”, this is not only an initiative to raise funds for breast cancer, but also a method of advertizing the religion itself. The organizers of this specific are hoping to also raise awareness about Islam and hijab. They have used it as an opportunity for Dawah, considered to be an obligation on Muslims to invite others to Islam. Dawah is often referred to as the act of “preaching Islam”.

It is, undoubtedly, an activity of proselytizing. In some cases, Dawah can also be seen as preaching to non-Muslims to convert to Islam. (The Encyclopeadia of Islam, BRILL)

The Canadian Islamic Congress has announced it was giving away pink hijabs to 200 Canadian women across the country who would volunteer to wear them on October 26th, to raise funds for breast cancer research. To request a free pink hijab, those interested were supposed to send a message to an e-mail address before October 22nd and include name, phone number, postal address and “a short personal biographical statement”. Why this ”biographical statement”?

And this is how the Muslims have decided to enlighten us about their history.

Call for a Canadian year

If the Canadian government decides to offer one month to every single ethnic, religious, linguistic group, there is only one tiny problem: the length of the year. Since there are only 12 months and more than 20 large ethnic groups and over 100 of “smaller” groups, I suggest the creation of the Canadian year, so that every single community gets a celebration! The Canadian week would become 3, 04 days long. Thus, the 120 ethnic groups could each get an equitable representation in the Canadian calendar of official events.

September 26, 2007


Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”. Canada is receptive and wants to satisfy diverse cultural sensitivities. The kirpan in schools, the turban replacing motorcycle helmets, and even the hijab in the army are only a few examples to prove Canada’s cultural responsiveness and tolerance. Like any other democratic country, the Canadian society values individual and collective freedoms and rights. As one fundament of such societies stays the declaration of equality between women and man. But this equality wasn’t here from the very beginning. This equality was achieved through long fight.

As part of the new world, Canada had to put the first bricks of future democratic institutions, shield for human rights and liberty. The path was long and bumpy. Women had no rights, following the historical situation of women in every society. The pioneers for women’s rights had a long way to go. Nellie McClung fought for women’s rights to vote, mothers’ allowances, public health nursing, free medical and dental care for children, liberalized birth control, divorce laws, and improved property rights for married women. She fought for women to be considered “persons” and have the right to be appointed to the Canadian Senate. In October 1929 the Judicial Committee ruled that Canadian women were, in fact, persons and could be appointed to the Senate. 1912 is the year when the first woman in the Canadian history was appointed as full professor at McGill University in Montreal. As for voting, Canadian women got this right in each province before 1940. Quebec was the one before the last (Northwest Territories) to recognize women’s right to express their political choice. This happened April, 1940. When it comes to Quebec, many things are different. Nothing was gained easily, nothing came fast. Women had to wait long years until their rights were accorded in this province. One of such discrepancy is the situation of married women. According to Quebec law, a woman can never use her married name in any official document and is to maintain her maiden name for the rest of her life. I judge that Quebec’s civil law denies women’s freedom of choice, and disregards cultural tradition and choice regarding marriage. If in the rest of Canada, women are given the choice of officially using their married name, Quebec is anchored in a phony law that denies freedom of choice in the name of “women’s freedom”. The origins of the law go back to the creation of the Quebec Charter of Rights, which clearly defined equality between men and women. And this equality was proclaimed by forcing women to stay “maidens”. It is interesting how a woman is forbidden from taking her husband’s surname after marriage, but a pardoned criminal has the right to change his/her name, in order to “protect” himself/herself. This outdated law must be abolished, since the “historical “reasons which determined its creation do not exist anymore. Women’s equality in our society doesn’t have to be proved anymore. It is a gained fight. The war is over. Not changing surnames is frequent for celebrities, but even so, many simply choose to add their married name next to their maiden one. The latest famous example is actress Demi Moore who has decided to change her surname and take her husband’s name: Kutcher. If keeping your maiden name is perfectly acceptable for Chinese, Korean, Iranian or Arab women, which are cultures where women usually do not change their name after marriage, as a European, I request to be given the choice of choosing my name and the right to use my married name in all official documents. Many Arab and Indonesian societies commonly do not have family names in the English sense of the term. French women do not legally change names when they marry. However, it is customary that they take their husband’s name as a “usage name”. This is not a legal obligation and not all women decide to do so. In Hungary both the bride and the bridegroom have to declare before the wedding which name they will use, a family sharing a common surname. In Brazil, until the recent reform of the Civil Law, women had to take their husbands’ surnames; not doing so was seen as evidence of concubinage. Also in Dutch tradition, marriage requires the female to drop her maiden name and take on the husband’s name. The current Dutch law gives people more freedom: upon marriage, both partners keep their own surname, but are given the choice to use their partner’s surname, or a combination of both. In Germany the name law is ruled by sexual equality since 1994: the woman can adopt her husband’s name or the man may adopt his wife’s surname. In Japan, marriage law requires that legally married couples share a surname. In Romania, when you marry, your name is automatically changed to that of your husband and all your documents are emitted with your acquired married name. But, a woman has the choice to request to keep her maiden name after marriage. As a social convention, in many cultures married women are called “Mrs. X” (their husband’s name) and unmarried women, or divorced (sometimes even after divorce some women choose to keep their “married”� name) are automatically called “Miss”, no matter their age. It is a change of status and a change of emotional character. It is a new position in the community and everybody knows that you are married because you have your husband’s name. Taking a married name might serve as daily and public markers of the marital union and the rights afforded thereto. Let’s not forget the emotional factor. Name change is a basic legal act that is recognized in practically all legal systems to allow an individual the opportunity to adopt a name other than the name given at birth, marriage, or adoption. In Quebec, any immigrant wishing to change his/her name is given this right. But married women are denied a fundamental freedom, that of choosing their surnames.This rule applies to all women domiciled in Quebec, even if they married outside Quebec or outside Canada, except women married before April 2, 1981 already using their husband’s last name to exercise their civil rights. (Source: Justice.gouv.qc.ca) Marriage is an institution which joins together people’s lives in emotional and economic ways. Even if in our modern times, there are many contemporary critiques of the institution of marriage, developed from a feminist viewpoint, suggesting that marriage can be particularly disadvantageous to women economically and socially, I believe that imposing any directions in this respect is infringement upon our human rights. I am not a Lucy Stone and there are many other women who are not. Though some feminists have asserted that taking a marital name detracts from the individual worth of the spouses, I request to have the choice of officially and legally using my husband’s surname. I do not believe that any of these feminists is being forced to anything against her will. Since they have the choice of not getting married, of not having a father for their child and the right of keeping their “maiden” surnames, their mission is accomplished. I consider that those women who, on the contrary, want to legalize a relationship by marriage, have a father for their child and use their husband’s surnames should be given equal understanding, respect, juridical and social support. Lesbians and gay couples have received the right to marry, to adopt children. Religious, sexual minorities turned the world upside down and the world decided to grant their more or less queer requirements. In this whirlpool of requests and approvals, married women in Quebec were completely ignored. In many cultures, if a woman lives with a man and doesn’t use his surname, it signifies that they are not married, thus it is a relation of concubinage. No matter how widely such relationships are socially accepted, some women are uncomfortable in presenting themselves in the above named type of relation. When you book a hotel room under different names, it is as if you are not a couple, but some people having an affair. This is humiliating. In many cultures, a couple who is married has the same surname. This is the social sign of a family, the sign of a couple legally married, who took joint responsibilities. Marriage is not a simple event. Marriage is a change of status; marriage is a new life, with a new name. Some women practice their new signature with emotion. The first document a woman signed with her husband’s name is regarded as a precious memory. Some women simply like to be called “Mrs. X”. A letter received on two different names is not addressed to a “family”. If some women do not wish to change their names and want to stay for the rest of their lives under their name of birth, it is their choice. But other women think that it is an honour to use their husband’s name. We must have the choice to choose our name after marriage. If the law is sensitive to human rights, than we must change its compulsory nature and enable women to make a choice. This means respect for human rights. I request the law to be changed and permit women to choose. I believe that the mentality according to which taking your husbands name is submission and you become his “propriety” belongs to the pioneering years of our fight for our freedoms and emancipation. We don’t have to wear trousers or smoke with ostentation in public anymore to prove that we are “free”. Sexual revolution and a tolerant society made everything possible: teenage mothers, fatherless children, fashion that shows nudity etc. What was long ago a gesture of rebellion against social taboos has become in our days as common as eating an apple. I believe that even feminists would agree that the Quebec law acts exactly against our freedoms, thus it must be abolished. I have contacted the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, but they do not consider that the case of a woman who wants to use her married name in all official documents is an issue of human rights. Since their answer was not satisfactory, I decided to send a letter to Prime Minister Jean Charest. The answer I have received from France Lessard, Director of Administration and Correspondance, is as follows: “Dear Mrs. Lussier, On behalf of the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Jean Charest, I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 12, 2007. Your query falls under the mandate of Mr. Jacques P. Dupuis, ministre de la Justice, and will be passed on to him for consideration.”

It is time to move on and put an end to a dictatorial law and give us nothing else but Freedom of Choice.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN QUEBEC- FORUMS II-III-IV-V
by Madi Lussier
October 2, 2007

FORUMS II-III-IV-V

FORUM II -September 13, 2007- Rouyn-Noranda
With over 80 people on the list, the debate gravitated more or less around the issues of language and religion vs. secularity.
Members of the first nations were also present, emphasizing the historical reality that they have helped out the first settlers with food and hunting.

The notion of family was also touched, without any clear suggestions coming from the speaker. A woman complaining that her children can not learn English, considering living in Québec as simply “frustrating”, brought into discussion what she calls “the special attention given to the fist nations”, while neglecting the needs of the others. She failed going further in her intervention, emphasizing that she loves first nations, but that she can not understand the reason for them to have territories and governmental funding. She was also revolted that their schools receive governmental funding, while “our” schools don’t.
She omitted to express her position on the religious schools that receive governmental funds.


A Lebanese living in Québec for 20 years stated that religion must be under the secular law, and not vice-versa. He also said that it is not the Québecers’ job to become Lebanese, but the immigrants’ job to become Québecers.
A senior gentleman stressed upon the fact that religion is a personal choice and each religious fraction can pray in their designated space (church, mosque, temple, synagogue), but he opposes some institution’s decision to offer special prayer rooms for Muslims.
There was also a hint that there are accommodations made for handicapped. Someone pointed it out that those accommodations are made to integrate handicapped people, and not to separate, which is the case of the religious accommodations.
Numerous speakers called attention upon the fact that this is a secular society, where men and women are equal and where we speak French. Are immigrants willing or not to adhere to these values?
A senior lady from Abitibi-Temiscamingue simply said that it is “idiot” to vote with a veil. Another gentleman continued the idea of voting and he stated that the case of a person with a burnt face who decides to cover his/her face is different from the case of these Muslim women who want to vote with covered faces.
Like in Gatineau, a speaker pointed out that the anchors in Québec are not enough racially diverse.
A difference was also made between other religious groups, like Buddhist, Taoist etc, noticing that the members of these religious communities do not ask for so many accommodations.
A female speaker pointed out that women’s rights in Québec are very recent and asked for vigilance. Forcing women to wear a veil tells them they are not in the public space, but segregated.
The language issue was again brought into public attention, someone declaring his revolt that in Montréal young people usually speak English, not French.
“Are we sleeping? Are we too accommodating”? He asked. To my surprise, someone had the courage to remind everybody of those areas inhabited by certain cultural communities where speaking French or English is simply not necessary, since they can work, live and buy in their mother tongues.
Another senior man stated that we see in our society individuals who want to implement practices inacceptable to our society.
One of the conclusions stated very clearly is that we must reject those accommodations which make a difference between a man and a woman.
A Colombian man who came to Canada in February needed an interpreter, since he couldn’t express himself neither in French or English. In parenthesis, the interpreter informed the audience that he is undertaking a course. Since February, I should say that someone can acquire a decent level of basic French.
This Colombian, having difficulties in expressing himself in Spanish too, was complaining about the lack of special programmes to help immigrants outside of the big cities.
«Ici, on vit comme Québécois» was the general conclusion.

FORUM III -September 19, 2007- Saguenay
The first striking impression was that the organizers of this third Forum were targeting teenagers as audience, since they incline to be quite favourable to “reasonable accommodations “.
The front section of the room was packed with teens, some with piercings, purple hair etc.
Probably the most important speech was held by a person of Egyptian origin, but very Québécois in his feelings. He said that many immigrants do not know anything about Québec’s history, artists, writers etc. and, at the same time, he mentioned the fact that there are no statistics on what exactly have immigrants brought to our society.
Another speaker, also a male, declared himself against those Muslims who want to impose their religious symbols in our society. He also reminded the audience that westerners are outraged that Afghani women wear burkas and we went there to “free” them, while here we have no objections against such a practice.
Another question was asked by a younger speaker who pointed out the issue of compromises required to be made by the majority in order to accommodate all sorts of minorities. “Where are the limits?” he asked.
Jean Pierre Plourde was not afraid to speak his mind and made statements like accommodations are irresponsible and that immigrants must conform to the majority.
A young speaker declared that he is in favour of such accommodations and that he is not bothered by those who wash their feet in the sinks of the institutions where they work.
Another person brought into discussion the Charter of human rights, affirming that this document pushes individualism to its limits and that the document should be revised.
A speaker of Congolese origins said that the Charter is being abused and that we need a chapter for responsibilities as well.
An Algerian immigrant said that it is not the majority who must make concessions, reminding a famous quote: “Evil triumphs because good people don’t do anything”. He also affirmed that Québec must become a country and thus have the right to decide what kind of immigrants we need.
Freedom is not disconnected from responsibilities.
Not few were those who have noticed that our society is more attentive to other religions than to Catholicism.
A Colombian speaker said that integration is a day by day process.
A speaker of German ancestry said something that could become the root of future discussions: “To keep tolerance one must sometimes be intolerant”.
The conclusions of the 3rd Forum showed the traditional gap between generations, teen age speakers supporting ReAccomms, while the other speakers brought into discussion issues like, history, language, our values, integration and respect.

Overall, immigrants proved to be more aware of the importance of preserving national identity and culture than many of those with deep roots in this land.
With a currently 46,000 immigrants a year coming to Québec, the discussions on “reasonable accommodations” are definitely only the beginning.
One solution to the problems would be a total control of immigration for each province.

FORUM IV –St. Jerome was not aired
FORUM V -September 26, 2007- Lanaudière
According to the 2006 census, the city has 429,053 inhabitants. There were many immigrants who wanted to express their position on the subject of reasonable accommodations and some of them, perfectly integrated in this society, like the case of a woman of Pakistani origin, mentioned that immigrants adapt at their pace and that we can not ask them to stop using their language or their way of dressing, since Europeans who travel in other parts of the world continue speaking their language and wearing their European clothing.
All these immigrants pointed out that in that city, immigrants are integrated.
Nobody made a difference between living in a small city and a city like Montréal, where immigrants are given the chance to live in their enclaves, isolating themselves from the mainstream society.
In a small city, immigrants have more chances to integrate than in a big city. If they do not have a community of their own, these immigrants tend to blend in the mainstream society, becoming citizens not only passport holders.
In a big city, they can spend their whole lives not speaking any of the official languages because living in a communal area makes it easy for them to stay isolated, sticking to their “home” habits/traditions, like those South Asian old women begging in Montréal for instance.
This striking image should raise questions for our authorities. Why are these women begging? What is the status of their families here? How did they get here?
People overwhelmingly proclaimed that if you came here, than respect us. If not, go back to your “home”.
With Lanaudière, people began to feel more at ease, daring to say what is obviously against the official state ideology.
And people began to question the immigration policy, even if this won’t please certain political parties.
October, 2007