Should reasonable accommodation be implemented in Quebec?

“Reasonable accommodation refers to the idea that equality rights set out in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms demands that accommodation be made to various ethnic minorities. The concept is especially applied with reference to the anti-discrimination laws in Québec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.” (Rock, Hoag)
Multicultural and ‘multiculturalism are terms commonly used to refer to “a social condition of ethnic and racial multiplicity, to a government policy for addressing the problems associated with such range, and to an ideal of interethnic harmony and cooperation on the basis of equality”. (Harold Troper) As an ideal or ideology, multiculturalism sets a standard for the equal treatment of new and minority members of an existing national society. It seems as though many calls for accommodation come from the advocates of mixed-up political precision, the promoters of multiculturalism, diversity and communitarianism. For them, the presence of permanent ethnic and religious groups and of collective rights attached to them is a public good. Reasonable accommodation is one of the ways of upholding differences and the negotiation of the level of accommodation. This model of Canada is what Joe Clark meant when he said that Canada is a “community of communities.” (James) The opponents of accommodation, especially in Quebec, are often inspired by French republicanism, by views of secularism, of equality and of integration of newcomers as equals into our society. They dislike the idea that civil society should become a permanent negotiating session between powerful lobbies. (Mackenzie) This is where reasonable accommodation comes into play. It is the thesis of this essay that reasonable accommodation is desirable for individual freedom and effective integration of immigrants.

Telling a person what to wear, how to decorate their homes, what to eat and when to celebrate holidays is an needless meddling with personal liberty. Moreover, it is important for society as a whole to provide the accommodation rather than for the opponents to become the instrument, because they tend to limit the freedom of their members far more than the Canadian or the Quebec state, or than any of the institutions operated by society as a whole. Determined to survive as identifiable entities, the lobbies are forced to encourage conformism with respect to culture, marriage and religion. (Mackenzie) In the Amselem case, which allowed orthodox Jews to construct succas on their balconies, despite condominium rules to the contrary, the Supreme Court specifically denied any legal pertinence to conventional doctrines of the Jewish religion and insisted on the individual faith and conscience of those who requested accommodation. This was a critical and beneficial moment in Canadian law, when the individual notion of accommodation was preserved as the only one. If accommodation is settled or rejected through the courts, each individual is free to determine his or her own cultural or religious identity.

The second reason for accommodation which is equally important is the integration of immigrants. Accommodating kirpas, kirpans, kerchiefs, turbans, and religious holidays allows the individuals in question easy access to public institutions and public employment. This, in turn, incorporates them in the conventional and, in the next generation, most of their children do not necessitate adjustment. This process is assisted by the fact that accommodation prevents the development of a sense of estrangement or, in some cases, view of harassment, which is sometimes apparent in remote minorities, and that the accessibility of many types of employment encourages economic equality, which is the most important circumstance for successful integration. All this, however, points to certain limits as what is to what is “reasonable” accommodation. Most will agree that requirements for accommodation should not be too burdensome. For instance, individuals should be able to assert a few days for religious celebration; society could not manage with a request for 40 days a year. Similarly, one could not allow truly dangerous objects in the name of religion (e.g., a sharpened sword instead of a kirpan). What has less often been pointed out is that accommodation that promotes the separation of groups. For instance, the creation of separate schools, hospitals, courts is undesirable. Moreover, a burka or a veil that covers the face, as opposed to a kerchief, is very challenging, because it comprises an obstruction to social integration. It is much unexpected that, in their opposition to accommodation, Quebec republicans fixated on the rather innocuous kirpan, and not on the expensive and morally questionable subsidies to private schools. (Mackenzie)

Another limit on accommodation is the fact that it is not possible to award accommodation that oppresses innocent members of the group. For instance, our society has prudently refused Jehovah’s Witnesses the right to forbid blood transfusions for their children. In the Jones case, the Supreme Court also refused fundamentalists the right to shelter their children from the teaching of science. (Rock, Hoag) It follows that the word “reasonable” when it comes before “accommodation” is not a worthless term. Rather, it is an ideology through which all accommodation must be analysed and judged. It is becoming more and more apparent that multiculturalism is not only a fantasy, but also a risky one. No society has ever been successful in the long run unless it included its citizens and eradicated blockades to unity between them. The word “assimilation,” which is odious when force is used, should be rehabilitated as a description of what happens to citizens of varied origins in an open society. (James) When the Anglo Saxons, the Scandinavians, the Celts and the Normans fused to form the English nation, and when the Romans, Celts and Germanic Franks became the French, both attained a cultural and social cohesion that no multicultural society can imitate. (James)
Of course, assimilation is not a one-way street. The immigrants adopt the language and culture of the majority, but the majority is also customized, and undeniably infused, by the giving of the immigrants. It is clear that the arrival of immigration of the 20th century have left a permanent mark on Canada and on the offspring of the two majority groups of the early 1900s. (Mackenzie) That is perhaps another reason, an educational one, to permit expressions of new cultures in our schools and other institutions, since much of what they bring will become part of us.
One more reason to errand accommodation is demonstrated by meekness. When the citizens of Hérouxville, firmly opposed to accommodation, decided to outline a Code of core Quebec attitudes and beliefs, they put secularism, gender equality and openness to different sexual orientation at the very top of the list. However, no more than fifty years ago, within memory of some living citizens, the same “Hérouxville would have set up Catholicism, paternal authority and the Christian view of marriage as fundamental values.” (Palmer) It is therefore fit for the process of combination not to be loaded by a rigid view of what it means to be a Quebecer or a Canadian and what the signs of successful amalgamation might be. As long as immigration remains moderately open, the process is a never-ending one. In every generation, all citizens will be enriched by contact with different ways of life. In each cohort, the children of the settlers of twenty years earlier will become fully integrated.
To conclude, it is the republican model liberty, equality and fraternity that call for reasonable accommodation. Calling for separate schools, religious groups and the granting of authority to ethnic or religious leaders and not necessarily for accommodation would be abhorrence to republicans. This said, in order to produce both greater integration and an increased level of social justice and individual freedom, it is crucial to accept the multiculturalism in this nation-state and the mosaic of Canada that is formed thanks to the diversity that makes Canadian who they are.

Works Cited
Bumsted, J.M. Canada’s Diverse Peoples. California: Abc Clio, 2003.
Hawkins, Freda. Canada and Immigration Public Policy and Public Concern. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1988
James, Carl E. Possibilities and Limitations. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 2005.
John. Berry Rudolf Kalin, Donald M. Taylor. Multiculturalism and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada. Ottawa: Dept. of Supply and Services, 1977.
Mackenzie, Scott. Screening Quebec : Québecois moving images, national identity, and the public sphere. Manchester: Manhester University Press, 2004.
Palmer, Howard. Ethnicity and Politics in Canada since Confederation. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, 1991. Tulchinsky, Gerald Immigration in Canada Historical Perspectives. Toronto: Clark Longman, 1994.
Rock, Hoag. Foundations of Canadian Constitution and Criminal law. Toronto, 2007.
Woodsworth, S. James. Strangers within our gates. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972.
Weiner, Eugene. The Handbook of interethnic Coexistence. New York: Continuum, 1998.

.