Friday, September 27, 2013

The Charter of Quebec Values

The Parti Québécois government and the minister for democratic institutions, Bernard Drainville, have presented recently the Charter of Quebec Values. The main points of this charter are ‘’to entrench the religious neutrality of the state[1]’’ and to ‘’limit the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols by public employees[2]’’. This emotional PQ project causes a division of point of views in the population. As far as I am concerned, I am fully against this charter; however, I understand the concerns on which the charter is based on.

Globalization has brought people of all around the world to emigrate. Now, multiculturalism defines most of the occidental countries. Some people are afraid that our society is losing its identity and find the need to clarify our values. This is legit and normal. But, how far can we go in the name of cultural identity?

First, I think the charter is not fair for every citizen. It is made for some specific religious minorities: Muslims, Jews and Sikhs[3]. Only them wear ‘’conspicuous’’ religious symbols. This is exactly what disturbs some people. Yes, too big Christian cross are forbidden too, but seriously who wears one foot wide cross? Of course, little cross jewelry is allowed (one of the only thing Christians wear), the crucifix at the National Assembly remains, Christmas trees in offices are allowed and people swears on the bible in court[4]. If this is not discriminatory, I do not see what could be. The charter only goes halfway. If we want the complete neutrality of the state, fine, but is has to be for everyone.

Second, I do not think, to prove the neutrality of the state, public employees have to leave home their religious symbols. Job and beliefs are two separated things. For example, a Jew doctor is not there to convert his patients to Judaism. He is there to treat them. His religion has no effect on the purpose of his job. When someone choses to wear a religious symbol, it is a personal decision for his personal life. There is a difference between the state and its members. The state is neutral as a whole, but its members believe in what they want. Furthermore, how can we expect people to leave their beliefs at home? When someone believes in something, he believes in it all the time, not after five pm and before eight am. For some religions, symbols come with the belief.

Third, I do not agree, in the name of gender equality, we should banish the headscarf of our public institutions. Julius Grey, a human-rights lawyer, said in the Globe and Mail: ‘’Quebec proclaims gender equality as a predominant ‘’value’’. It is indeed very important, but does it necessarily carry more weight than racial equality?[5]’’. The PQ government wants to forbid the headscarf in the name of gender equality, but they forbid women to wear a cultural symbol as well. In the name of gender equality, discrimination is right? I do not think so. I think this measure has the opposite effect on gender equality. Women who wear the headscarf will not remove it one day with no afterthought and go to work. They will not give up their beliefs because it is in the law. They will have no choice but to quit their job. Those women will become housewife and will depend on their husband. Great progress for the gender equality…

Fourthly, we will lose employees. Like I just explained, people will quit their job. They will probably go to work in another country. Yet, we need those people. Who will replace them? Additionally, it is not moral and constitutional to force people to choose between their convictions and their employment[6]

To conclude, I disagree with the Charter of Quebec Values because it does not apply equally, there is no link between people wearing religious symbol and the neutrality of the state, it will decrease the gender equality and it forces people to make a choice.
‘’The time has come to rally around our common values. They define who we are.
Let’s be proud of them.’’ – Bernard Drainville[7]
People who have other cultures are proud of their values too. They define who they are too. Why ‘’Quebec values’’ should supplant the people personal values?



[1] Authier,P. (2013, September 11). More than religious attire at stake. Montreal Gazette, p.A3.
[2] Ibid
[3] (2013, September 14). The Globe and Mail, p.A10.
[4] Idem, Authier, P.
[5] Idem, The Globe and Mail
[6] Ibid
[7] Idem, Authier, P.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Legalization of marijuana

The legalization of marijuana has come up in the news recently with the declaration of Justin Trudeau. He admitted that he have smoked pot once and said that the legalization of marijuana will be in the Liberal electoral platform[1].
What is legalization? The possession, the use, the selling and the production become legal. Decriminalization permits only the use.[2]

Usually, the first argument against the legalization is that marijuana is unhealthy especially for teens. A study says ‘’that pot-smoking interferes with the healthy development of teens’ brains and puts them at risk for developing a dependence to the drug, as well as for mental health problems[3].’’ 17% to 32% of teens aged 12 to 18 years old use cannabis according to a Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse research[4]

In my opinion, marijuana should be legalized. First, it can be a source of money. The government spends a lot of money in a law that does not even work. By legalizing, this money can be used for other things. Even more, the government can make money by selling cannabis. Jobs can be make too for the production and it will reduce the profit of criminal organizations. Second, if the government sells it, the quality of marijuana will improve and the use can be regulated. Pot consumers do not know what is really in what they buy. Criminal organisations do not really care about the health of their clients, so they mix substances that are really strong with the cannabis. If the government sells it, consumers will be sure of the ‘’ingredients list’’.  Furthermore, the government can establish rules to regulate the use. They can set a minimum age like alcohol or gaming and a cap of amount by person like in Colorado and Washington states[5]. This way, consumers will be safer. Third, the argument that says that pot is unhealthy does not work. Alcohol is legal and it is unhealthy when consumed in excessive quantity. Gaming is legal and it is unhealthy when it is too often. Caffeine is legal and it is unhealthy when consumed in excessive quantity.  Greasy, sweet or salty food is legal and it is unhealthy. The cannabis is the same thing. It is unhealthy only when it is consumed excessively like everything in life. There comes a time where people make their own choices. The government cannot control everything. It is true that some people are more mentally affected then others by drugs, but it is no reason to forbid it for everyone. Fourthly, the law is completely useless. Nearly 40% of the population have consumed at least once in their life in 2011 according to Health Canada[6]. People are curious and they will try it, forbidden or not. People smoke marijuana since the 19th century in
North America[7].This practice will probably never end. What is the point to forbid it? Governments tried to forbid alcohol during the first half of the 20th century. Did that work? No. Prohibit something and you will be sure that people will do it.  





[1] CBCNEWS. ''Trudeau's pot 'actions speak for themselves,' Harper says''. CBC, (August 23 2013). Online. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/22/pol-michel-justin-trudeau-marijuana-pot-huffington-post.html (Source read on September 12, 2013) 

[2] METRONEWS. ‘’ Cannabis : légaliser, dépénaliser, quelle différence?’’. Métro, (September 15 2012). Online. http://www.metronews.fr/info/cannabis-legaliser-depenaliser-quelle-difference/mljo!eOcbF61RCGtRo/ (Source read on September 12, 2013)

[3] MULHOLLAND, Angela. ‘’ Pot use presents long-term danger to teens' brains, study suggests’’. CTVNews, (August 29 2013). Online. http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-headlines/pot-use-presents-long-term-danger-to-teens-brains-study-suggests-1.1432167 (Source read on September 12, 2013)

[4] CANADIAN CENTRE ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE. Student alcohol and drug use. Ottawa, 2011. Online. http://www.ccsa.ca/2011%20CCSA%20Documents/2011_CCSA_CrossCanada_Report_on_Student_Alcohol_and_Drug_Use_Report_in_Short_en.pdf (Source read on September 12, 2013)

[5] TENCER, Daniel. ‘’ Marijuana Legalization Canada: Liberal Party Lays Out Detailed Economic Plan For Pot’’. The Huffington Post Canada, (10/28/2013). Online. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/28/marijuana-legalization-liberal-party-canada_n_2567316.html (Source read on September 12, 2013)

[6] CANADA. HEALTH CANADA. Enquête de surveillance canadienne de la consommation de drogues. Ottawa, 2011. Online. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/drugs-drogues/stat/_2011/summary-sommaire-fra.php#a3 (Source read on September 12 2013)
[7] SPICER, Leah. Utilisation historiques et cuturelles du cannabis et le débat sur la marijuana au Canada. Ottawa, Parlement du Canada, 2002. Online. http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/library/spicer-f.htm#A. Histoire du cannabis en Amérique du Nord (Source read on September 12, 2013)

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Community


In an individualistic world like ours, it may be difficult to develop a feeling of belonging; however, we are not that far apart from each other. In fact, we belong to countless communities. A community is a group of people related by the place of living or a common characteristic. For example, I belong to the Shefford community, the french community, the Cegep community, my job community, etc. To break the isolation, the trick is simple: active citizenship. An active citizen takes a role in is community. He participates. He has rights, but in exchange he has responsibilities. They can be written in the law or not. I have the right to drive a car, but I have the responsibility to respect the rules of the road. It is an obligation because it is in the law. I have the right to a democratic political system, but I can take the responsibility to vote or not. There is no obligation. An active citizen respects his community obligations and chooses to take responsibilities for the well-being of his community. As a person who is part of communities, I contribute by respecting my obligations: I stop at red lights, I do not steal, I do not hurt anyone, I do not disturb in class, I do not throw my garbage outside, etc. I contribute too by recycling, going to school, working, following the news, or voting. It is not much, but at least I am not a nuisance. I participate to my community's economy by working and going to school (future well-paid job). By being an active citizen, people develop a feeling of belonging for their communities. They can then feel a part of something.