As instructed in the assignment, I have taken an article on Reasonable Accommodations. Below, I have recopied the article as well as the URL for it.
Tuesday » November 6 » 2007
Reasonable accommodation hearings no model to follow, observers say
Marianne White
CanWest News Service
Sunday, November 04, 2007
QUEBEC -- They have come to Quebec's roving commission on how to better integrate minority groups to complain about having to eat kosher peanut butter, how hijabs make them uncomfortable and to say immigrants should go home if they refuse to bend to the values of their new land.
That was just a snapshot of one open-mike session of the so-called reasonable accommodation commission touring the province.
At times the views have been anything but reasonable, but the question with just under a month left of these hearings is has it been worth it?
For the rest of Canada and much of the western world, which are also struggling with similar issues, another question is, would this be a model to follow?
"A lot of people are wondering where this is going, but it's not going anywhere and that's the point of the hearings. Citizens go there everyday to express themselves on a variety of subjects," stressed Louis Rousseau, a religious studies professor at the University of Quebec at Montreal. "I am quite content with what I have heard so far during the hearings. I think it could have gotten really out of control considering the sensitive issues."
Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean has said Quebec's debate on the reasonable accommodation of minorities is a healthy exercise that should take place in the rest of Canada as well.
But her call for a similar debate on the Canadian front has not found a lot of supporters.
Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies, believes the hearings should not be used as a model.
"The main problem is the open forums that are too unstructured and too wide in scope. Anyone can say anything and it legitimates the anxiety expressed by the people," said Jedwab in a phone interview from Ireland.
He is giving lectures in two cities and said the Irish government is highly interested by what is going on in Quebec about cultural diversity and the integration of immigrants.
"It's a good exercise and we need to talk about those issues, but I told them that they should really do it a different way," he added.
Morton Weinfeld, a sociologist who runs McGill University's Canadian ethnic studies program, agrees and thinks the decision to create a touring commission was admirable in theory but in practice has proven otherwise.
"It's a dangerous exercise,'' he said. "It's like taking medicine or taking a vaccine. Sometimes you get a cure, but sometimes there are dangerous side effects," he added. "It reminds me of talk radio and very often they appeal to the lowest common denominator."
The hearings were set up by Premier Jean Charest last winter after the election campaign was monopolized by the issue of tensions between old stock Quebecers and immigrants.
But Charest has decided to step in before hearing the commission's recommendations, expected next March. He has said he wants to amend the provincial Charter of Rights to ensure the equality of women and men takes precedence over freedom of religion. And in a letter sent to media outlets last week, he lashed at opposition parties for trying to score political points off the fiery debate.
Some observers, including immigrants, say the media and political parties are to blame for spending a great deal of energy roiling the waters over the unreasonable comments made at the hearings.
"The media have focused on cases of reasonable accommodation between people or groups and presented them as a threat to Quebec values," said Fatima-Zahra Benjelloun, a member of the Quebec City Muslim community that represents some 6,000 people. "That only fuels fears and could increase racial tensions."
That view that is echoed by Fo Niemi, executive director of the Montreal-based Centre for Race-Action on Race Relations.
"(The hearings) normalize the intolerant views of the other. At first the other was the Muslim, then it expanded to the Jews, and then the Sikhs and who knows who is going to be next," said Niemi.
He thinks the hearings are necessary to deal with the underlying social malaise but calls it troublesome. "So far, it looks like an unregulated open-line talk show where only a certain section of the population comes forward," he said.
Last week, sociologist and historian Gerard Bouchard, co-chair of the commission with philosopher Charles Taylor, summed up the views expressed at the hearings by saying there are two types of Quebecers. There are those who have an attitude of openness to minorities and the others who fear them.
"Sadly, I have seen more of the later tonight," Bouchard said at the end of an evening session in Quebec City. But he was surprised the next day to hear a majority of positive comments about immigrants.
Sylvain Leclerc, spokesperson for the commission, said the majority of people who have spoken at the hearings are moderate. They are often against reasonable accommodations, especially for religious reasons, but they are not against immigration.
"What Quebecers are expressing at the hearings is an anxiety about their identity fuelled by their religious background. And that has to come out one way or another," said Rousseau.
The problem for the hearings so far, is that what is reasonable is truly in the eye of the beholder.
© CanWest News Service 2007
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=5a5592f5-15e4-4a3e-929c-126543196db4&k=95872
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Chapter 10, Page 147, Question 4
How is the Holocaust taken up in the curriculum? How does teaching about the holocaust compare to teaching about Israel? About Palestinians and the Middle East? About other genocides?
This is a difficult question to discuss as it has been a while since I have been into a history class. From what I remember, the holocaust was always mentioned in the curriculum simply because it occured in the during World War 2, which was a significant part to European and Canadian history. However, the holocaust was covered for a lengthy time, about a week or two, but it did not give great detail as to the events of the genocide. It was in the higher grades, such as grades 10 or eleven, or even in college, that we were able to learn about the great horrific incidences that happened, such as babies being used for target practice, gas chambers or medical research.
As for Israel and the other Middle Eastern countries, it was rare if we learned about it other than in the importance it had in Canadian or European history. From what I learned of the Middle East, I learned in college more than high school. English classes and history classes were what taught us about the Middle Eastern, and even then, due to the short amount of time that was the college semester, we learned very little. Sometimes the media might show something about Israel, but it is the history that is being made now, not the history that has already occurred.
Though there has obviously been other genocides throughout history, the high school and elementary school rarely teach their students about the detailed history of them, such as Rowanda, or the Native American genocides. It at all mentioned it is mentioned briefly and in a Eurocentric manner. From what I can remember, what we learned about the Native Americans was that we took their land and killed many many hundreds in doing so. However, we also learned about their attacks back upon the European settlers and rarely did we learn just how we killed and attacked their people.
Our curriculums in the schools are very much Eurocentic. If we learn anything about the rest of the world it is how it plays a role in Canadian or European history. Genocides, though talked about, are rather breif and undetailed. Other wars are only mentioned if Canada, USA, or Europe were apart of it, and we rarely hear about our wrong doings, with exceptions of course (Hiroshima Bombings, etc).
This is a difficult question to discuss as it has been a while since I have been into a history class. From what I remember, the holocaust was always mentioned in the curriculum simply because it occured in the during World War 2, which was a significant part to European and Canadian history. However, the holocaust was covered for a lengthy time, about a week or two, but it did not give great detail as to the events of the genocide. It was in the higher grades, such as grades 10 or eleven, or even in college, that we were able to learn about the great horrific incidences that happened, such as babies being used for target practice, gas chambers or medical research.
As for Israel and the other Middle Eastern countries, it was rare if we learned about it other than in the importance it had in Canadian or European history. From what I learned of the Middle East, I learned in college more than high school. English classes and history classes were what taught us about the Middle Eastern, and even then, due to the short amount of time that was the college semester, we learned very little. Sometimes the media might show something about Israel, but it is the history that is being made now, not the history that has already occurred.
Though there has obviously been other genocides throughout history, the high school and elementary school rarely teach their students about the detailed history of them, such as Rowanda, or the Native American genocides. It at all mentioned it is mentioned briefly and in a Eurocentric manner. From what I can remember, what we learned about the Native Americans was that we took their land and killed many many hundreds in doing so. However, we also learned about their attacks back upon the European settlers and rarely did we learn just how we killed and attacked their people.
Our curriculums in the schools are very much Eurocentic. If we learn anything about the rest of the world it is how it plays a role in Canadian or European history. Genocides, though talked about, are rather breif and undetailed. Other wars are only mentioned if Canada, USA, or Europe were apart of it, and we rarely hear about our wrong doings, with exceptions of course (Hiroshima Bombings, etc).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
