Richelle Wiseman

In the journalism profession, there is a noble concept which journalists seek to attain and that is “objectivity” in their reporting.  However, in journalism schools, up and coming journalists are taught that in fact, “objectivity” is a myth.  We all have biases.  The key for journalists is to understand their own biases, be aware of them, and work to counteract them as much as possible in their reporting.  

The same holds true for “academic freedom”.  Over the past year, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has decided to challenge the possibility of “academic freedom” for professors of religious universities who must sign a statement of faith.  In their view, this means that these professors have had their academic freedom limited by this requirement. 

But like “objectivity”, “academic freedom” is also a myth.  All academic institutions have behavioral requirements for their professors (to avoid charges of sexual harassment, racism, etc.), and on many secular campuses, there are also informal and unspoken expectations for professors’ beliefs and ideologies. 

For example, if a science professor attempted to get a job in the Science Department of a major Canadian university, but he openly discussed his belief in “creationism” versus “evolution”, how likely is it that he would be hired?  So is there no academic freedom to believe in “creationism”? 

How about other unpopular beliefs and ideologies – what if a professor was pro-Israel, anti-abortion,  anti- gay marriage, anti-national daycares, or questioned the science of climate change?  If he or she were to let these views or beliefs be known while interviewing for a position at a secular university, would academic freedom be honoured?

The “myth of academic freedom” is in fact a myth for this reason:  secular universities and colleges also place limits on academic freedom – they are just not open and up front about it.   This was clear to me when, while I had a brief stint at Mount Royal University as the Coordinator for the Multi-faith Chaplaincy, a Math Professor complained to the human rights officer that posters advertising bible studies on campus were a violation of his human rights because he doesn’t believe in the Bible.  Seriously.

The University of Calgary and Carleton University’s recent treatment of students placing displays of aborted fetuses on campus is another indication that academic freedom in the so-called bastions of free thought in our country is selectively applied.

The CAUT has embarked on an investigation of Christian institutions, even though there have been no complaints from academics in these institutions claiming their freedom is limited.

So while the CAUT is charging Redeemer College in Ontario, Trinity Western and other Christian institutions, with a “lack of academic freedom”, they would do well to investigate the ways in which professors on secular campuses are stifled, shut down, and even fired for having views which are not consistent with “secularism”.

In fact, they need to be educated on the nature of secularism itself.  It is a religious world view even as Christianity is a world view.  It is not some neutral body of beliefs which merely expunges religion from the equation.  It simply replaces religious points of view with a set of secular beliefs and values, which are by no means neutral.

They should also be reminded of some significant history when it comes to the nature of academic institutions.  Our entire western education tradition originated in the seminaries of Europe.  Many of the great and lesser historic universities began as religiously based institutions of higher learning (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, McMaster, McGill, Ryerson, and yes…Mount Royal University).

The CAUT should find another windmill to tilt at, and in the meantime, it should survey professors of secular universities to find out how many of them feel they have full “academic freedom.”

Over the past week, many Albertans have reacted strongly to the Alberta government’s Bill 45, which adds parental rights to the Human Rights Act. The change would allow parents to remove children from school classes teaching materials they don’t support.

Teachers and human rights activists fear the bill will encourage parents to prevent children from taking valuable science, health and sexuality classes for religious reasons, thus undermining the public school curriculum. Some parents, on the other hand, assert their right to object to certain values-laden materials taught in public schools as normative, under the guise of being “neutral”.

Labels like “intolerant”, “narrow-minded”, “bigoted”, and “homophobic”, are tossed around to describe Albertans who favour the legislation.

But a recent national poll conducted by Angus-Reid for MACLEANS magazine offers up a very different picture of Albertans. The statistics show that Albertans are the most tolerant of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists, compared to other provinces and regions in Canada. The stereotype of“red neck Bible Belt” Alberta is shattered by this poll.

The May 4th MACLEANS Magazine cover story, “What Canadians Think of Sikhs, Jews, Christians, Muslims…” outlines the limits of religious tolerance across Canada. For all of our boasting about being a tolerant, multicultural society, Canadians show there is room for improvement in how we view people of various religious faiths.

The article focuses on statistics such as 72% of Canadians hold a positive view of Christianity while only 30% think the same of Sikhism, and 45% of Canadians believe that Islam encourages violence.

However, on the Angus-Reid website, the full set of questions and data tables for this poll offer up a more intriguing picture than was reported in MACLEANS. For instance, for the question about Islam being a mostly peaceful religion, Albertans scored the highest in the country with 44% saying yes, and Quebec scored the lowest with 13%.

Alberta scored higher than any other province in holding a positive view of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jews. For Islam, Alberta scored the highest for having a moderate to favorable view of Muslims, (38%) while both Quebec and Atlantic Canada scored the lowest at 17%.
The Angus-Reid poll also asked what level of familiarity people had with various religious, and if they had any acquaintances who are followers of those faiths.

For the question, “Do you have a good basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of…?”, nationally the highest scores for “Do not” were for Sikhism (67%) and Hinduism (61%), showing Canadians are less familiar with these faiths. Fifty per cent said they do not have a good basic understanding of Islam. Alberta and BC scored the highest in responding they do have a good basic understanding of Islam (35% and 37% respectively).

To the question, “Do you personally have friends who are followers of any of these religions or not?”, the positive responses are revealing. Across the country, 89% of Canadians have Christian friends, 45% have Jewish friends, 32% have Muslim friends, 27% have Buddhist friends, 24% have Hindu friends, and 16% have Sikh friends. Regionally, some differences are quite interesting.

BC and Alberta scored the highest in having Sikh friends, (36% and 25% respectively), perhaps due to larger Sikh populations in these two provinces. BC scored the highest for having Hindu friends (38%), followed by Ontario (35%) and then Alberta (31%). For Muslim friends, Ontario scored the highest (42%), which is not surprising given that half the Muslims in Canada live in the Greater Toronto Area. Alberta was close behind with 39% and BC scored 32%.

Overall, the data suggests familiarity with the basic teachings and beliefs of Canada’s diverse religions, combined with having friends who hold these beliefs leads to greater tolerance and appreciation of different faiths. Quebec emerges as the least tolerant province in Canada in this poll.

Alberta, in spite of its “red neck” reputation, is blessed with a very diverse population, and in particular, a diverse workforce which has brought us all into greater contact with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Hindus. This exposure to colleagues and friends of different faiths has helped Albertans become more tolerant.

This is not to say that all Albertans are tolerant of diverse faiths and viewpoints. Sadly, there is still some ignorance, fear, racism and intolerance to overcome, here and across the country. There are challenges facing the province in accommodating conflicting religious values and practices in the workplace, in public policy, and in the classroom.

But Alberta is faring much better than expected.

If she gets her wish, this year Dr. Suhaila Tarazi will be able to celebrate Easter at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, where Christians from around the world will attend worship services. The Church is one of the holiest sites in the world for Christians, built on the place where Jesus Christ was crucified and buried.

But Dr. Tarazi must first obtain a permit from the Israeli government to travel from her home in Gaza, to go into Israel and to Jerusalem.  She is doubtful she will succeed, and though it is only a short distance from Gaza to Jerusalem, it might as well be a world away.  She is part of the tiny Christian minority caught in the crossfire between Israel and Hamas.

Dr. Tarazi is the administrator for Ahli Hospital in the Gaza strip which is in a 100 year old building funded by churches in the Middle East and around the world.  It is a private Christian hospital run by the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem, with a staff made up of Christians and Muslims.  During the recent war with Israel, the hospital suffered minor damage to doors, windows were shattered, and there are new cracks in the ceilings.  But the hospital treated some 400 casualties during the conflict.  With only 80 beds, the hospital was a beehive during the crisis, and Muslim and Christian doctors worked day and night to attend Muslim and Christian patients in cramped quarters and lacking medical supplies. 

“We provide service to all people of all religions here,” Dr. Tarazi said in a phone interview. “We never even ask who is who.  It doesn’t matter.  In our hospital we are working in harmony together.”

“This hospital has been here for over 100 years, and we have never been afraid to be Christians here,” she added. “That doesn’t mean there aren’t extremists in Gaza.  There are, but they target Muslims and Christians.  Extremists don’t differentiate.”

The Ahli hospital receives some assistance from the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency), and treats around 52,000 outpatients per year.  Most people in the Gaza live in such poverty that they cannot afford any medical care, so the hospital staff and supplies are paid for through funds and donations from churches. 

In Gaza, there are only between 3,000-4,000 Christians in the midst of 1.5 million Muslims.  While they do not support the ideology or theology of Hamas, Christians share the same hardships as Muslims in Gaza.  Now, some Christians in Gaza fear that Hamas extremists will become more militant in the wake of the conflict, and that Christians will be targeted more often because they are increasingly seen as symbols of western political power.   Ironically, strong support for Israel by many western Christians has resulted in greater challenges for Palestinian Christians who feel largely abandoned by the western Church.  Emigration by Palestinian Christians is on the rise, leaving a shrinking active Christian community in the territories to worship and maintain Christian holy sites.

The statistics for Gaza are bleak on every count.  The average annual income is $1100, the unemployment rate is 35%, the infant mortality rate is at 18.5%, half the population is under 16, and there are 1.5 million people on a piece of land 25 miles long and 7 miles wide.  Add to that the death toll from the conflict of between 1100 and 1400 people including children, and the destruction of many buildings, homes and infrastructure. 

Since Hamas was elected in 2007, Israel has blockaded imports and exports into Gaza, and electricity has been rationed. Food and water in the drought-stricken area are always scarce.  During the crisis, international agencies had difficulty transporting supplies into Gaza, and efforts to provide humanitarian aid are still scrutinized as potentially helping Hamas.  After Hamas was elected, some Palestinians, including some Christians, moved to the West Bank.  Now families are divided, unable to leave either of the territories to visit Israel, or each other. 

 Dr. Tarazi will likely spend Easter Sunday with her family and friends in Gaza.  She will worship in her home congregation at  St. Porphyrious, a Greek Orthodox church which dates back to the 5^th century, the oldest church in Gaza.   It was named after the 5^th century Bishop Porphyrious whose tomb is in the church.  Some 400-500 Christians will gather there on Easter Sunday to celebrate Christ’s resurrection, a hopeful reminder that there is hope after suffering and life after death.  And this Easter, that will be especially meaningful to the Christians of Gaza. 

As for Dr. Tarazi, who longs for peace in the region, she hopes next year she can celebrate Easter in Jerusalem.

Over the past few weeks, three journalists took action against the Centre for Faith and the Media based on allegations and assertions which lack truth and are closer to rumour-mongering than anything resembling journalism. None of these journalists called me or anyone at the Centre to verify their facts before writing these articles and blogs, which are potentially damaging to the good work of this organization.

It seems that the basis of good journalistic practice - checking facts with original and multiple credible sources – has gone the way of the typewriter.

At issue is the fact that the Centre for Faith and the Media has received a contribution agreement from the federal ministry of multiculturalism to provide media relations training to Muslim communities in Canada. This includes convening discussion panels where local journalists, journalism professors, and local Muslim spokespersons, leaders, and students, can engage in open dialogue about how Muslims are treated in Canadian media, and how that treatment can be improved.

In each of the eight cities where the project is (or was) taking place, the makeup of the panels has been varied. We have endeavored to involve people from many different Muslim traditions, and points of view within Islam. We have seen the participation of women wearing hijabs, women without hijabs, Sunnis, Ismailis, representatives of the Islamic Society of Nova Scotia; the Muslim Students Association of Concordia University; the Canadian Council of Muslim Women; the Muslim Council of Calgary; Islamic Social Services Association Winnipeg; the Muslim Social Services Network Toronto; and CAIR-CAN. In Ottawa, we hosted Maher Arar and his wife Monia, who spoke about the role of the media during their ordeal. In our final events in Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver, we will engage Shia, Ahmaddiya and Muslims from other groups and organizations.

We have had excellent journalists participate on our panels: in Winnipeg, Terry McLeod of CBC and Greg Lockert from the Winnipeg Free Press; in Toronto, Jonathan Kay of the National Post, Stuart Laidlaw from the Toronto Star, and Peter Kavanagh from CBC National Radio. In Halifax, Rob Gordon of CBC and Dan Leger from the Halifax Chronicle Herald. In Montreal, Jeff Heinrich from the Montreal Gazette, and Laurie Julie Perreault from La Presse. In Ottawa, Graham Green, editor-in-chief of the Ottawa Citizen, and Evan Dyer of CBC Radio. In Calgary, Graeme Morton from the Calgary Herald, and Faiz Jamil from CBC Calgary. In Edmonton and Vancouver, we will involve equally terrific journalists from local major media outlets.

The Centre has come under fire for having several members of CAIR-CAN on our panels. Because CAIR-CAN exists primarily to interact with the media on behalf of Muslims in Canada, it was logical to find that its members are articulate when it comes to media issues and not simply complainers about poor coverage. They are interested in helping the media pursue fair, balanced and accurate stories to reflect the diversity of Islam in Canada. At no time have they had work subcontracted to them by the Centre. They have simply been panelists contributing their own points of view.

Our original Journalist’s Guide to Islam has been removed from our website and will be replaced by a full Media Directory of Islam in Canada which is part of the what The Muslim Project will deliver. A wide range of Muslim groups are being polled and asked to submit information, contacts, and links to make this resource much better than our previous directory.

Allegations that CAIR-CAN had links to terror arose in 2004 with a comment made on an Ottawa radio station by Mr. David Harris, who was subsequently sued by CAIR-CAN. David Frum, writing in the National Post, also linked CAIR-CAN to terrorist activities, and the newspaper was also sued by CAIR-CAN. The suit against Harris was dropped in favour of continuing to press the National Post to settle, which it did finally by printing an editor’s note of apology from Mr. Frum, stating that CAIR-CAN was not linked to terror. This was published in the National Post on Sept. 17, 2005.

The pertinent text of that apology is as follows.

“David Frum and the National Post acknowledge that neither Sheema Khan nor the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada advocates or promotes terrorism.”

Despite the stringent vigilance of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), which is watchful of many Muslim individuals and groups, CAIR-CAN has never been found to have ties to terrorist organizations, either by CSIS or the RCMP. Still, rumours persist that CAIR-CAN has links to terror. Thus, the Centre, by having people from CAIR-CAN on panels with journalists to discuss how reporters do their job, is now accused of being in bed with terrorists. This borders on defamation and puts good people, board members, and reputations at risk. It also smacks of the McCarthyism of the 1950’s, when if you knew someone who knew someone who might be a communist, then you were a communist too.

 The Centre, along with other organizations seeking to engage Muslims across the country, will no doubt encounter some Muslims deemed “questionable” or illegitimate by other Muslims. This is similar in the Christian community, in which Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are regarded as cults and not true Christians. But this does not change the need to engage a wide range of people in discussion and dialogue, to persuade and educate, to expose and challenge views, to do what a democratic society does: Let a range of ideas and views be expressed, challenged, asserted, debated, and put through the rough and tumble of public scrutiny.  

There are an estimated 1-million Muslims in this country. Those of us working in the public sphere need to find ways of communicating to all of them, and not write off some because they may hold some views and opinions the rest of us do not share. We do not endorse the full range of views and theological or political positions held by some who have taken part in our panels. That goes for the journalists as well as the Muslims.

Finally, let me say that so far, the Muslim Project has highlighted to me that some people are bent on pursuing division and alienation. The Centre chooses a more open approach. We do not promote terror or jihad or Islamist ideology, but good journalism. We promote dialogue. Ironically, we have been victims of religious stereotyping - one of the very things the Centre was founded to combat.

All the more reason the Centre for Faith and the Media, and many other groups reaching across religious and ideological lines, need to continue to dialogue, and take the heat in pursuit of the light.

Freedom of speech is a core value of democracies around the world. The debate in Canada has surfaced around such questions as:

• Should buses carry ads promoting atheism or any religious belief, for that matter? If not, why not?
• Should students on University campuses be allowed to espouse views which are not mainstream?
• Should limits to freedom of expression be arbitrarily assigned by human rights commissions?

A look at some free-speech first principles would benefit all of   us, but especially those making decisions regarding this   cherished Canadian value.

Freedom of speech is actually referred to in a number of ways in   the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and   Freedoms. Article 18 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom   of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom   to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or   in community with others and in public or private, to manifest   his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and   observance.”

Article 19 states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion   and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions   without interference and to seek, receive and impart information   and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

There are now efforts at the United Nations, however, to curb   freedom of speech about religion, though it is disguised as an effort to preserve religion. It is ironic that the very   organization to enshrine freedom of speech and religion is   playing a dangerous game.

In April, the UN will hold its Durban II Conference which has as its purpose the promotion of anti-racism. In its first   conference of this nature, Durban I, which took place in 2001, delegates singled out Israel as a nation guilty of promoting racism toward Palestinians. Representatives from Israel and the United States walked out of the meetings.

Canada, Israel and the U.S. have stated they will not be sending  delegates to Durban II because they fear the meeting will be a repeat of the first one, with a focused attack on Israeli policies to the exclusion of dealing with other human rights violations by other member countries, particularly the ones criticizing Israel.

But in addition to what will likely be an impassioned discussion   of the recent events in Gaza, there is another item on the   agenda of Durban II that should concern us - an effort to have the UN enshrine the condemnation of the defamation of religion.

The UN General Assembly has approved the nonbinding resolution -   put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is a group of 57 Muslim member states - which urges member states to provide: “adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”

Several western nations and groups, including the Organization of American States and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have opposed the resolution as contrary to freedom of expression.

One concern is the definition. Just what is defamation of   religion? Who gets to decide what constitutes “defamation?” and will it be defined the same way in say, Iran, as it is in   Canada? There are a whole range of definitions of defamation,   within common law, and outside of it.

It is not hard to connect the dots between this initiative by   the OIC and the worldwide protest to the publication of the   Danish cartoons.  But other religious groups have also marshalled substantial global protests to material deemed offensive to their religion.

For example, the Hindu community mounted a vast and concerted effort to ban the Hollywood film The Love Guru because of its offensive nature to Hindus. Christians protested the movie The Da Vinci Code because of its blasphemous portrayal of Jesus Christ.

The danger of pitting freedoms of speech and expression against the prevention of defamation of religion is that practitioners of one faith may no longer be able to express any concerns or critique or even dissent with the tenets of another faith in certain countries.

This could clearly exacerbate the existing blight of persecution of people of one faith by people of another or no faith on the grounds that their beliefs amount to “defamation.” In many countries, religious persecution is already a major problem.

Unless it provides more clarity on “defamation,” the UN Human   Rights Council is in a compromised position.  Instead of protecting the rights of individuals who espouse unpopular or controversial viewpoints and beliefs, the UN might actually be limiting those very freedoms.

Wayne Holst, who teaches religion and culture at the University of Calgary, penned the following book announcement about a recently published anthology of Canadian Christian writing.  Books like this receive far too little attention from mainstream media, and this particular book is a treat, a well-conceived delightful sampling from talented Christian writers.  It would make an ideal Christmas gift for book lovers with an appetite for thoughtful writing from across the Christian spectrum.  Wayne runs an Adult Education class at St. David’s United Church in Calgary, and posted this review to his “Colleagues List”.  Here is Wayne’s review:

NORTHERN LIGHTS: An Anthology of Contemporary Christian Writing in Canada
Edited by Byron Rempel-Burkholder & Dora Dueck. Published by John Wiley & Sons Canada: Mississauga, ON. September, 2008. Paper; $24.95. 260 pages.

What do people like Ralph Milton, Michael Higgins, Mary Jo Leddy, Lorna Dueck, Ron Rolheiser and Jim Taylor, share in common?

They join forty other Canadians by contributing to an anthology of contemporary Christian writing. Editors Rempel-Burkholder and Dueck wonder if there is such a thing as a uniquely Canadian spiritual identity. In collecting and publishing the work of many fine writers from across the religious spectrum, the editors believe that such an identity exists. It may not make us better than other nations, but it does make us special!

The editors attempt to trace “the spiritual geography” of Canada through this work. Just as Canada has a wild and diverse physical geography, our nation possesses a spiritual identity uniquely shaped by land, history, and a diverse array of people.

Just as the very formation, existence and survival of Canada could be viewed as a miracle - so this literary potpourri can be similarly celebrated.

We owe Rempel-Burkholder and Dueck a large “thanks” for conceiving and bringing to birth this first-of-its kind collection of writings from within the Christian heritage. Each contribution helps us to explore important spiritual dimensions, themes and issues.

Obviously, there are limitations to such an undertaking.

Do we only recognize contemporary book writers and narrowly defined Christian authors? Surely, our literary/spiritual landscape transcends what appears here, and has been in the process of formation from the time of first human settlement.

That means many guides who have influenced Christianity are not found here. (For example, First Nations people who don’t write books; spiritual writers who do not specifically define themselves as Christian; spiritual guides whose work appears in periodicals or electronically.) All of these could help us to better understand what we mean by spiritually Christian.

Yet, this book represents an important new venture.

What does appear here are forty six contributors - including several literary award-winners, religious and political figures, and social activists from across the land. Found on these pages are a healthy blend of evangelical and mainline Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Pentecostals and Mennonites. These Christian contributors prove to be very diverse spiritually and reflect the national spectrum.

This is not a book of literary analysis or criticism, but a collection of memoir, poetry, fiction, non-fiction and meditation. It maps with words the astounding richness of what it means to be Christian in this relatively new nation. Just as Canada is developing a respectable national literary tradition, we are also seeing the formation of a a substantial spiritual oeuvre - “a colourful dance of words” and “a wonderful Canadian celebration” (to quote from the back cover.)

One example from among many will have to suffice. Joy Kagawa, well-known author of the book “The Rain Ascends” tells the story of Millicent Shelby’s shattering discovery that the elderly pastor- father she adores abused young boys throughout his life. How Millicent began to come to terms with this tragedy suggests that spirituality does not shield us from the real world but rather, it serves as a healing resource to live confidently within it.

Last week, the Mayor of Vancouver stood on the steps of a downtown Catholic church to make an important announcement.  This week, he will table a motion to go before city council in April to make faith-based charitable organizations exempt from a city land use permit which could hinder services to the city’s poor.

Apparently, soup kitchens and shelters for homeless and poor people sponsored by churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples, cause line-ups, which annoy residents who live nearby these downtown locations.    In response to concerns of neighbours, city officials decided to require religious organizations to take out a “social service permit” which would involve hiring security guards to manage the lineups and to obtain personal identification information from homeless clientele.   

Mayor Sam Sullivan thinks those requirements are going too far, and will create unnecessary hoops for organizations keen on helping Vancouver’s less fortunate citizens.  

According to the Globe and Mail, a group of Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh leaders got together to speak out against the new permit requirements, in defense of the church which started the controversy in the first place, Tenth Avenue Alliance Church, a historic evangelical congregation in the Vancouver core.

It was a courageous move for the mayor who is facing a civic election this year.  He has taken an important stand to acknowledge that religion does have a role to play in the public square, and surely, helping the poor is one of those roles. 

Who knew there are civic officials in Canada who want religious organizations to obtain permits to practice compassion, love, mercy, and generosity?  

The notion seems to be that places of worship are confined to worship, and that “land use” for such buildings is limited to private activities.  But this is to misunderstand the very essence of religious communities which historically, and intrinsically, seek to serve the wider community.   Most religious groups don’t distinguish between worship and “social service.”  In fact, many houses of worship would claim that serving the poor is itself an act of worship, and a natural expression of religious beliefs.  Indeed, across Canada, religious organizations have historically attended to a wide range of social needs by providing education, hospitals, hospices, orphanages, soup kitchens, homes for unwed mothers, shelters for homeless, the list goes on.  

So why the need for an additional permit to help people?  Surely the complaints of a few people with NIMBY syndrome should not be allowed to prevail.

Furthermore, the bureaucrats shouldn’t set up red tape around “holy ground”, when the city is grasping for ways to address homelessness and poverty.  

It seems the only time we hear about Canada’s Sikh community in the media is when there is a)a major Sikh festival which attracts cameras, b)some further development in the two-decade old Air India inquiry, or c)there is an issue with a turban or a kirpan somewhere.   This week, the Sikh story was about a Sikh motorcyclist who refused to wear a mandatory helmet, as he claimed it violated his religious beliefs to be forced to remove his turban.  However, the Ontario judge in this case believed that religious rights in this instance are trumped by the cost to address the motorcyclist’s health care costs should he become involved in an accident.  Not only is he placing himself at greater risk, he is also risking tax dollars in the health care system.    In other cases, such as the Muslim girl who was prohibited from playing soccer for wearing a hijab, the safety question took precedence over religious dress. 

Is this a disturbing development?  One might ask, what other instances might arise when the state decides that religious freedoms take a back seat to other considerations?  (Common sense would suggest that the temporary removal of a turban to accomodate a life-saving helmet does not pose a threat to religious freedom. )

But other issues are at play here.  The brewing storm over accommodation issues in Quebec has resulted in a formal process to determine how such religious rights versus community norms and civil law can best be negotiated.  The “Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences” (the Bouchard-Taylor Commission) will be read with avid interest across the country by legislators, educators, religious leaders, people of many faiths, politicians, and people keen to see religion locked up in the nearest closet.   It will also be read by people who steadfastly work against racism in this country.    It is due to be released the by the end of this month.

So underneath the helmet issue, there are the larger issues of accommodation.  When does Canada’s much-celebrated multicultural society accommodate differences, and when do those differences need to succumb to the wider sense of what it means to be Canadian?

There is yet another issue.  How does the media portray Canada’s diverse communities? What happens when their religious, ethnic, cultural, and social identities and values come into conflict with those which are deemed the foundational social values and principles of this great country?  How do the media answer these questions simply by what they do and don’t cover?  A quick scan about Sikhs in Canada’s newspapers headlines over the past few years reveal that most stories involving Canadian Sikhs are negative. The same is undoubtedly true of Canadian Muslims. 

Where are the positive stories?  Are all Canadian Sikhs and Muslims terrorists themselves, or guilty of helping terrorists, or otherwise disrupting the fabric of Canada by demanding accommodation?  Are there not Canadian Sikhs and Muslims making significant contributions to Canadian society?  The answer is….yes, of course there are.  Scores of them. For instance, a little mentioned story in Calgary media was the donation of money by the local Sikh community to a local hospital several years ago.  There are Members of Parliament and provincial legislatures who are Sikhs, and also Muslims.  There are numerous faculty members of post-secondary institutions across the nation who are Sikhs, and also Muslims.  There are educators, lawyers, doctors, and people of all trades and vocations who are of Sikh and Muslim traditions, and they are making Canada a better country.  But if the predominant media image of these communities is a negative one, does it affect the way all of us view Sikh and Muslim Canadians?

Of course it does.  Which is why we need to look under the helmets, the kirpans, the hijabs, and get on with looking at how diverse Canadians are making a positive difference in this country.  What a breath of fresh air that would be.