Author: Kyle H.

Yes, there is a petition against federal cabinet ministers Navdeep Bains and Harjit Sajjan because they wear turbans. No, I don’t believe it comes from white supremacists or Ezra Levent supporters, but from a far worse source: people who should know better. It is a non-official petition and has under

Yes, there is a petition against federal cabinet ministers Navdeep Bains and Harjit Sajjan because they wear turbans. No, I don’t believe it comes from white supremacists or Ezra Levent supporters, but from a far worse source: people who should know better.

It is a non-official petition and has under 1,000 signatures despite it being up for at least a month, so it obviously has no traction. At the same time it is depressing for me, someone who jumps for joy at the idea of an active secular and non-believer movement in Canada, to have to send off the e-mail I did below to the group I found promoting the petition. I’ll let it speak for itself:

Subject: Sajjan/Bains Petition
Sent from this contact form

Hello to Atheist Freethinkers;

I’ve found your site Atheology tonight, the first time I’ve come across it which is a bit surprising considering that I’ve been an atheist for at least a decade (I’m 25 currently) and an avid supporter of secularism in Canada. I’ve never heard of Mr. Rand or Atheist Freethinkers before now, and trust me it isn’t for lack of searching. Maybe it’s because you’re based in Quebec, though obviously your English site has been updated recently enough that there is activity on your end.

At any rate, let me say upfront that I share your goals as generally stated in your Manifesto page. Yet I find myself scratching my head over your support for a petition asking specific federal cabinet members to be forced to remove their religious garb due to their position as government officials.

I like to believe I understand and support secular principles, which equals out to the government and its representatives acting without regard to their personal beliefs when legislating or applying laws. For a basic example, a Christian who works for the government cannot refuse to officiate a same-sex wedding because it goes against their belief – the law of the land is such that same-sex marriages are legal, and it is incumbent upon that official to follow the law or lose their position. In essence it is ensuring that no government and no government official can exclude a citizen from accessing services on the basis of their religious convictions, in addition to not favouring one religion over another with laws and services. That, right there, is secularism.

Secularism, however, cannot be the justification for individuals, even those representing the government, having their freedom of expression taken away. Secularism is not there to stamp out belief, curtail the free expression of belief, or ensure conformity of non-belief by individuals. At its most basic, secularism about the government being neutral with regard to religion, yet this petition, ironically, asks for it to be activist on the issue!

The premise of the petition is based on the same flawed idea that the Parti Québécois’ Charter of Values (which, yes, I know you also supported through the RPL) had – that individually expressed belief somehow reflects on the government. It’s ridiculous and a flimsy cover for what the PQ and supporters truly opposed – outward, public and noticeable expressions of “otherness.”

Remember the horrible little chart of what religious symbolism was acceptable? Acceptable were the tiny, little things barley noticed such as necklaces or earrings which only spiritualists and Christians would wear. And what wasn’t? Large and obvious garb like turbans or hijabs which people we’re not used to having around wear. Aside from its lack of consistency, it was an obvious ploy by Marois and the PQ for the votes of bigots scared of brown people and their changing society – and I apologize if that is a little blunt, but it is the truth.

This petition, whether of the same motivation as the Charter or not, still has just as poor reasoning. The most basic question I can ask is what do I, you, or anyone care if Navdeep Bains or Harjit Sajjan wear turbans? What does anyone care if Carolyn Bennett was sworn in with First Nations religious items, or if Lawrence MacAulay swore in on a Bible, or if any of the past Conservative ministers swore in with a religious item or wore religious garbs? Why does it matter? Those are examples of individuals expressing their belief, not authorities favouring one belief over another in an official capacity or in the application of legislation and laws of the country – the very thing secularism fights against.

And don’t send me back a reply with “but it’s about their position of authority!” – that’s such a bull excuse. You may as well argue that anyone with a name derived from a religious source, like a Muhammad or a Jésus or someone named after a saint, such as Saint David of Wales, must change their name or only be referred to by numbers or pseudonyms in case people are cowered by their position of authority. It’s a silly and invalid argument, not to mention that it treats the public like idiots.

Furthermore, the case the petition points to, MLQ vs Saguenay? It says that institutions and officials cannot have a practice that is exclusionary and favours one belief over another [basic summary for those interested] – but, and I admit I’m not a lawyer, I don’t believe the wearing of a turban or religious garb by an individual constitutes an exclusionary practice!

Sajjan wearing his turban does not equal out to all armed forces members becoming Sikhs, or that all religious adherents other than those sharing Bains’ beliefs are now excluded from from working in his ministry or using Industry Canada’s services or whatever example you want to give. Forcing a prayer on a municipal council and its attendees, however, IS an exclusionary practice, which is why the SCC ruled the way it did.

Yet in an ironic twist, I would imagine forcing the ministers to take off their turbans would be an exclusionary practice that interferes with their freedom of conscience! I suspect that would contravene the SCC’s ruling.

That you are supporting a non-official petition and not legal action against Sajjan or Bains makes me suspect suspect that you and the RPL agree with me on that last point.

The petition has an incorrect premise and should not be something supported just because it has the veneer of secularism – it isn’t secular, it isn’t neutral, it’s an attack on the freedom of expression of two individuals, one I suspect you would be outraged at if the petition was about ministers who didn’t swear in on religious books. Think about that.

In closing, I’m an atheist, a promoter of secularism, and I should be an ally and supporter of yours. However, whatever your stated aims are, you’ve somewhere crossed the line from being supporters of a secular nation to people just upset at the idea of religious belief or the outward expression of one, and that has unfortunately put you more in league more with bigots and reactionaries than someone like myself who, to be blunt, is among the future core of the secular movement and its activists.

That is a damn shame, and something I hope you will correct in the future.

Thank you,

Kyle Hutton
Burlington, Ontario

Its a long e-mail and who knows if it will ever be read, or held up as an example of a wishy-washy liberal scared of offending the religious – I don’t know, and I don’t care. I just wish to neatly demarcate the boundary associated as an atheist and supporter of secularism with the kind of… ideas represented by that petition, Atheist Freethinkers, or supporters of the thankfully dead Charter of Values.

Yes, there is a petition against federal cabinet ministers Navdeep Bains and Harjit Sajjan because they wear turbans. No, I don’t believe it comes from white supremacists or Ezra Levent supporters, but from a far worse source: people who should know be…

There is an on-going case right now in Quebec that, until today, I honestly had no idea was happening, which should say something about the current focus of media attention. The case concerns the comedy of Mike Ward, who in a segment in 2012 that I can only partially understand

There is an on-going case right now in Quebec that, until today, I honestly had no idea was happening, which should say something about the current focus of media attention.

The case concerns the comedy of Mike Ward, who in a segment in 2012 that I can only partially understand (curse my limited, but improving, French) made fun of a singing teenage boy with deformities caused by Treacher Collins syndrome. The joke was apparently offensive enough to cause the subject, Jérèmy Gabel, to lose his confidence and become “intimidated” at school. Thus the Quebec human rights tribunal has become involved, and forced Ward to defend his jokes.

This probably makes me a bad liberal, but I find that Ward being judged before the tribunal to be far more offensive and intimidating than his crappy joke on a comedy set.

Then again, I’m one of those liberals who has always been a bit uneasy with our nation’s restrictions on speech. I’ll admit that I have been conflicted over Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, and when it was legislated away I didn’t shed any tears – but the key word there is being “conflicted,” because I recognize the problems such laws try to address. No one wants to let racists and xenophobes whip up fools into a violent frenzy against others, and there should be something in place to stop them from doing so, I get it.

Yet overreach with such laws is inevitable, and Mike Ward’s case is the perfect example of it. Why is the government coming down from on high in a bid to regulate the speech of an individual who made a stupid, but non-life-threatening, joke, and why does that not give pause to many more people than it currently does? To what point do people believe the government needs to go to punish someone’s speech just because it offends someone else? Are we to all bow down and limit our speech and thoughts just because someone with a personality on a hair trigger might become upset, or another person might use a joke to bully?

Yes yes, I know, slippery slope and all that, obviously we’ve had these laws for decades and we aren’t all forced to use newspeak. I also understand there are consequences for speech, and I fully embrace that concept – after all, if you don’t like Mike Ward’s comedy, don’t see it, speak out against it, and counteract it with positive messaging. I’m sure there are plenty of people who will support you, myself among them (helps that I never heard of the guy before now).

But when you use the government and ominous tribunals to punish speech, you should have a damn good reason. You’re invoking the power of an authority with a monopoly on the use of force, that is a very serious reaction to a joke about you. People should recognize and respect the power of government, not use it to overwhelm someone else  because your feelings were hurt. It is patently ridiculous to be so upset as to trivialize the job of our authorities, and worse still, give the government precedents to act upon in the future.

I don’t want my speech to be regulated by anything except the standards of decency in society that I must subscribe to if I want to interact with others in a pleasant manner. That’s what political correctness is, you know – being decent to other human beings. But not every person is decent or cares about being so, yet they’re still imbued with the same rights to speech that I have, so why would I want them to be subject to onerous punishment for exercising their rights, just because they lack empathy and decency? That completely defeats the purpose of a society we like to insist is just and fair to all, not to mention threatens my own rights.

Again, this probably makes me a bad liberal – everything these days is about how to protect the vulnerable from jackasses like Ward. Yet using the power of government and laws to force consequences for offensive and disagreeable speech only invites politicians and demagogues to react in ways I don’t think we want them to.

Yes, I am referring to the recent condemnation by our nation’s legislature of the BDS movement. I have no love lost for BDS and definitely some concerns about its backers, but then again I also recognize that they have the right to advocate for whatever they’d like without violence. Not every BDS supporter is a crazed anti-Semetic lunatic, but Parliament and, in a shameful moment for me, most Liberals decided to use the weight of government to condemn them all because, lets be frank, politics, and because the precedent is there for them to do so.

Free speech, free association and yes, free thought have just been officially condemned by the government of Canada, and the people on the left justifiably freak out – yet a second-rate comedian makes an offensive joke and is dragged before a tribunal, and no one bats an eye. All I ask is for some consistency and for free speech to be, you know, free, whether I like that speech or not.

People wonder how Trump could have been created. I don’t, I know exactly why, and I know we have no one to blame but ourselves when we have the government enforce consequences for non-violent speech. It needs to end somewhere.

There is an on-going case right now in Quebec that, until today, I honestly had no idea was happening, which should say something about the current focus of media attention.The case concerns the comedy of Mike Ward, who in a segment in 2012 that I can …

Kudatah hoonta leader George Clark, standing up to the soshulizums. (Source: VICE)I’m sure most politicos have seen this by now, but the ‘kudatah’ phenomenon is absolutely hilarious.And it isn’t just for the amusing spelling mistake. The ‘kudatah’ or ‘…

Kudatah hoonta leader George Clark, standing up to the soshulizums. (Source: VICE) I’m sure most politicos have seen this by now, but the ‘kudatah’ phenomenon is absolutely hilarious. And it isn’t just for the amusing spelling mistake. The ‘kudatah’ or ‘kudetah’ (I’ve seen both) is an actual movement going on,

Kudatah hoonta leader George Clark, standing up to the soshulizums. (Source: VICE)I’m sure most politicos have seen this by now, but the ‘kudatah’ phenomenon is absolutely hilarious.And it isn’t just for the amusing spelling mistake. The ‘kudatah’ or ‘…

After months of grueling, astonishing and absolutely insane politicking from the major party candidates in the United Sates, the Iowa caucuses have finally arrived. It is time to see who has the chops and who is full of hot air – well, honestly I think we already knew that, but

After months of grueling, astonishing and absolutely insane politicking from the major party candidates in the United Sates, the Iowa caucuses have finally arrived. It is time to see who has the chops and who is full of hot air – well, honestly I think…

After months of grueling, astonishing and absolutely insane politicking from the major party candidates in the United Sates, the Iowa caucuses have finally arrived. It is time to see who has the chops and who is full of hot air – well, honestly I think…

If you have followed the last few months in #cdnpoli, one of the most fascinating topics has been the Conservative Party of Canada’s adjustment to the post-Harper era. Indeed, interim leader Rona Ambrose and members of the party’s younger generation, such as Michelle Rempel, Michael Chong, and Lisa Raitt, have

If you have followed the last few months in #cdnpoli, one of the most fascinating topics has been the Conservative Party of Canada’s adjustment to the post-Harper era.

Indeed, interim leader Rona Ambrose and members of the party’s younger generation, such as Michelle Rempel, Michael Chong, and Lisa Raitt, have practically fallen over themselves in an effort to exorcise the party’s past positions on marijuana, same-sex marriage, useful data, and the MMIW inquiry.

This has arguably led many to ask what these people were doing when they were in government and their opposition to these government and party policies would have been useful. The answer to that is probably somewhere between “Harper made us do it” to “we kept getting elected on these positions,” both cop outs but nevertheless true.

Regardless of what their reasons were before, they are taking steps now to realign the party in the direction they believe Canadians have gone. This is a good thing even if it is transparent as hell, but it shows the political maturing of a party whose basic attitude during their time in government can be summarized as mean-spirited. I think everyone can and should welcome the change of heart.

However, the question that should be on everyone’s mind is whether the party’s elites will be the ones to decide where the CPC is going. Its great to see the party’s heavy-hitters seemingly come to the light, but are the party members going to follow suit?

As we’ve seen with the revolt against the party establishment to the south or the Wildrose Party’s rejection of elite-driven moderation in 2014, the members of political parties are not necessarily ones to co-operate, especially when many are of the angry type.

Will members of the Conservatives fall in line with their leadership’s moderation in the coming policy convention, where the same-sex marriage issue and discussion of the party’s new stances will come up? Will members get revenge on the moderating elites by electing someone like O’Leary, the nutty outsider, or Jason Kenney, the socially conservative Harper protégé?

The moves made so far are all well and good, but the elites within the Conservative Party are not likely to have the last say. These sudden, jerky movements in directions very different from the previous leader, who like it or not was popular among the party’s base, will create a backlash. If Ambrose and her cohorts go further, and start reversing course on hot issues like the Syrian refugees or the fight against ISIS, the backlash will take the party down hard, much to the glee of the Liberals like me but to the benefit of no one.

The Conservative Party, like their cousins in the Republicans or our cousins over in the UK Labour Party, are saddled with a nasty core that will not hesitate to lash out against what they perceive to the be spineless leadership. It hasn’t worked out well for either party, and it won’t work for the Conservatives.

Its up to Ambrose and this new generation to convince their core that their direction towards moderation is where the party needs to be – but can they? That is the question that needs to be answered by her and others in the months to come.

Moving the party away from the Harper era will take a lot more than the party elites making nice on various issues. It will take the entire party shifting its core away from the aggressive, dog-whistling paleo-conservative message of the last government and into the mainstream of Canadian society.

If you have followed the last few months in #cdnpoli, one of the most fascinating topics has been the Conservative Party of Canada’s adjustment to the post-Harper era.Indeed, interim leader Rona Ambrose and members of the party’s younger generation, su…