{"id":11282,"date":"2021-06-15T13:46:47","date_gmt":"2021-06-15T16:46:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bambisafkar.ca\/?p=11282"},"modified":"2021-06-15T14:19:30","modified_gmt":"2021-06-15T17:19:30","slug":"a-society-is-democratic-inasmuch-as-it-respects-and-protects-its-minorities-but-what-about-the-respect-of-minorities-for-the-often-silent-majority","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bambisafkar.ca\/index.php\/2021\/06\/15\/a-society-is-democratic-inasmuch-as-it-respects-and-protects-its-minorities-but-what-about-the-respect-of-minorities-for-the-often-silent-majority\/","title":{"rendered":"A society is democratic inasmuch as it respects and protects its minorities, but what about the respect of minorities for the (often silent) majority?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Bambi thanks her friend Fred\nfor his comment about yesterday\u2019s post (as shown further below). His comment,\nwhich inspired the current post, reads like this: \u201cMaybe the crowd simply\ndoes not believe in the sincerity of Charette, especially given the passing of\nBills 21 and 96 by his government<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For those who are not familiar with Qu\u00e9bec. Mr. Charette is the Minister responsible to fight racism, among other files. He has been booed for six minutes during his whole speech by a crowd turning its back to him at times, applauding to prevent him from speaking, and insulting him in English\u2026 at an event meant to be commemorate the horrible crime (of hate and terror) of the Afzaals on the streets of London, Ontario. Why? To cite Dr. Mathieu Bock-C\u00f4t\u00e9 once again, most likely because \u201cthe crowd seems to believe that there is a link between the attack in Ontario, Bill 21, and the refusal of the Government of Qu\u00e9bec to submit to the theory of systemic racism<\/em>\u201d (https:\/\/www.journaldemontreal.com\/2021\/06\/15\/lintegration-au-quebec-est-un-echec<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bill 21 is about Qu\u00e9bec\nstate secularism (no religious symbols for public servants whilst in position\nof authority, that is, representing the government, NOT all public servants. No\none will lose his\/her current job because of this bill, thank Goodness). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bill 96 is about the protection of the French language in Qu\u00e9bec (it came after 44 years following Bill 101). Bambi is not an expert of linguistics. However, she read an interesting interview of Dr. Bock-C\u00f4t\u00e9 with Dr. Guillaume Rousseau, a Professor of Law, who believes Bill 96 to be insufficient although necessary and a step in the right direction (https:\/\/www.journaldemontreal.com\/2021\/06\/12\/le-projet-de-loi-96-est-insuffisant-mais-necessaire-et-va-dans-la-bonne-direction–entretien-avec-guillaume-rousseau<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for Bill 21, Bambi easily saw its merit at first for all the positions of public servants in position of authority, except teachers. She took the time to think about the latter and saw the whole logic. She especially saw the strong, and at times nasty, reaction of the rest of Canada toward this bill. Who knows? Perhaps this has influenced her acceptance of the whole bill? Indeed, many of her posts are supportive of Bill 21, which is made by Qu\u00e9bec, in Qu\u00e9bec, and\u2026 for Qu\u00e9bec. It is a bill that respects Qu\u00e9bec’s history, culture, and a (10-year) public debate on reasonable accommodation. As a reminder, even the Liberal Party of Qu\u00e9bec<\/em> endorsed it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mind you, not all her relatives\nin Montreal agree with this bill. Most do, but not all. However, whether with\nor against it, they all RESPECT Qu\u00e9bec\u2019s democracy, in addition to being grateful\nas well as in love with their province. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why do we easily accept\nto live under truly restrictive laws of other countries when we are working\nabroad (e.g. in Saudi Arabia or other countries of the world), but not with moderate\nbills in Qu\u00e9bec? Does that make any sense? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Immigrants and newcomers usually\ntake an active role in their adaptation to their new country. It is called give\nand take. Yes, your host community\/society has to learn to know you and to\naccept you. However, you also must have the wisdom to know how to change your\nmindset, as needed, to fit into your new society; the one you chose to come to,\nprecisely because of its beautiful values. Adjustment to a new country is not\nan easy process, perhaps harder nowadays than ever. Of course, there are also homesick\nfeelings or nostalgia to one\u2019s birth country. Plus, it takes time to adjust and\nintegrate to a new place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Bambi\u2019s mind, a\nsociety is truly democratic if it is welcoming (or accepting) to all its citizens.\nStated differently, a society has the duty to respect, protect, and even honour\n(all) its minorities. However, minorities (perhaps especially radical voices\nwithin any minority) have the duty to listen to and respect the silent majority.\nBambi is not talking about Bill 21 only. She is talking about other forms of apparent\nsecular ideologies, like the wokeism movement, or like any other movement. Enough\nof disrespect for the silent majority, please.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, we are increasingly\nobserving the entitlement of some voices. Some of which impose their views on\nothers. Some of which shamelessly resort to censorship, or other means of intimidation,\nof this or that citizen. They do so because they are unable to simply hear\nvoices telling them \u201cwhat they do not want to hear<\/em>\u201d (Hello Mr. George Orwell!).\nIs this how democracies work in life?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To come back to your\ncomment Fred, how can bills democratically voted for in the National Assembly\nof Qu\u00e9bec be correlated, even mildly, with a horrible hate crime in Ontario? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not Ontario, and\nsurely not Qu\u00e9bec\u2019s, fault if one citizen behaved in this violently barbaric\nmanner. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Should we stop and reflect\non possible factors related to this tragedy. Of course, we must do so. However,\nthere is a difference between explaining and exploiting a human tragedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, despite any\nnoble intention, it is irresponsible for our political leaders to attribute violence\nin Ontario to a bill in Qu\u00e9bec.  Could\nthey please refrain from doing so?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To come back to the\nincident in Montreal, sadly, the crowd forgot that this event was meant as a\nvigil to pay tribute to the innocent victims; This was not a political\/ideological\n(or impolite) platform. There is a time for grief and a time for grievance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even Minister Charette\nkindly reminded the crowd of the reason of their gathering (a vigil to commemorate\nthe victims). Some would say that he may have not been assertive enough in his\nreaction. The latter is understandable as it must be intimidating to stand up\nin front of such crowd for six long minutes whilst you are speaking one\nlanguage (French and common sense) and they are speaking another one (English\nand anger). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To conclude this post, East is East and West is West, we get it, but why can\u2019t both meet\u2026 at least during the time of silence in a vigil? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

—<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Dr. Mathieu Bock-C\u00f4t\u00e9 is right: An innocent family is massacred in Ontario, but a crowd is booing a Minister in Qu\u00e9bec\u2026 and in English. How can that make any sense?<\/a><\/blockquote>