Public Religious Expression

[LeatherDoll]

Part 4: Use of Statistics in Assessing Systemic Discriminatory Effects

Four: The Need to Collect Data Indicating Status in a Protected Group

pool and Dan: for the moment, you are both right - we cannot yet operate blind to one's group membership. In fact, since the playing field is not yet level, operating blindly will result in adverse impact and de facto discrimination.

I do not, at this time, advocate or support the adoption of any policy that will eliminate collecting data that reflects an individual's membership in protected group. In fact, I believe that no one should be allowed to opt out of such data collection (which is currently allowed) since this will render the resulting tally inaccurate and, therefore, interfere with our ability to accurately determine impact, set goals, or measure social change over time. (As it happens, I was a consultant to the committee responsible for introducing questions into the 1994 census designed to collect this data from all residents of Canada - adopted specifically to ensure that these essential base population numbers were available to set goals and measure institutional compliance with the Federal Employment Equity Act and its two associated components: the Legislated Employment Equity Program - LEEP, and the Federal Contractors Program - FCP.)

Further, these numbers are essential to the statistical control of the impact of group membership in the mathematical analysis of data relevant to an examination of allegations of systemic discrimination or other Human Rights violations that are based on differential group outcome. The only way to determine that protected group membership has no influence on outcome, is to first account for (statistically eliminate) its effects, and then examine the remainder for similarily across groups.[/b] This is a specific case where sameness does imply equality, because group effects and individual differences are first removed.

Finally, it is noteworthy that the “colour-blind” approach is usually suggested/advocated by the right wing in backlash to advancements in Human Rights legislation as an effective tool in eliminating historical disadvantage and establishing equity for all members of protected groups. It is forwarded to sabotage this necessary analysis – with the desired effect to render the mathematical analysis and tracking of the impact of systemically discriminatory activities impossible.

For example, those who suggest that race not be measured know that without this base-line census figure the statistical analysis forwarded by theories of distributive justice cannot be conducted: the population measure, required to determine proportional representation of protected group members in a context, and essential as a “known variable” (as opposed to an “unknown variable” or the thing that is to be determined through solving the equation) in the mathematical formula that allows comparison to outcome, will be unavailable. This (is likely) why non-collection is suggested.

The proposal to eliminate data collection is commonly heard where racial profiling is called into question as the basis for (alleged) disproportional enforcement in policing and security and severity of punishment/criminal sentencing as a function of membership in a protected group defined by visible minority status (i.e., being non-white). Without knowing the racial or visible minority status of individuals, the donsrable adverse impact (if any) of profiling on these measures as a function of race, is impossible.

 

[LeatherDoll]

Part 5: Back to the Thread Topic - France's Legislation

Five: My Opinion (Does This Make 4¢ ?) on France’s Policy (Again)

My analysis of the impact of France’s position, since I obviously did not make it clear the first time (although, in my own defence, I know I said it many times) is a long-term one. I also indicated (again, numerous times) that for now Canada’s approach is correct. France’s legislation specifies an “ideal state” goal.

To reiterate, France’s statute does not outlaw religious participation, it outlaws the unrequested insertion of one’s religious beliefs in a public forum/environment. The implication is clear - religion is a private matter, and all devotion, practice, and expression should remain private - not be forced upon others as they (try to) carry out their daily activities. The intent is to codify the philosophy that individual’s are entitled to do absolutely anything they want, as long as it does not adversely impact upon or coerce the involvement of others. It asserts that the display of religious icons ONLY in public spaces “hurts” (i.e. interferes with) an individual’s right not to participate in religion, something France has decided is more important, culturally, than one’s right to do so (in public).

The legislation exemplifies the reality that there IS a point at which public civil disobedience ceases to be an acceptable challenge to systemic and cultural limitations of one’s freedoms (such as Rosa Parks) and converts to an inappropriate intrusion of one’s beliefs on another’s ability to live feely without (or differently from) them. It is a VERY fine line.

The rule is, however, no more censorship than any other (constitutionally sound) law that limits one’s (public) behaviour. Analysis of each directive in each circumstance is required to determine its appropriateness. For example, even freedom of speech, which I staunchly uphold despite the fact that there are those whose words I believe are harmful - perpetuating bad attitudes and offensive behaviour - and would rather not hear, has its limitations, as when the substance of the speech adversely intrudes on others’ ability to exercise freedom of choice (long established as a higher, or superceding, cultural imperative) - by inciting hate or encouraging violence toward them and diverting them from their path by requiring that they resond to these interfering speech makers.

Allowing some speech to be silenced is the thin edge of the wedge on the slippery slope of censorship; there is no way that I, or any of us, can, in good conscience, select who might be the appropriate body to devise and impose such limits - I don’t want my voice denied next. (It is for this same reason that we are all obliged to respond to – rather than tolerate – Human Rights violations: even if we are not directly affected in application, the limitation on anyone’s opportunity to participate fully, by definition, adversely impacts the society as a whole[/] and imposes hardship on the remainder by expecting us to achieve our goals despite the loss of their energy and skills.)

Regardless, each freedom is accompanied by an associated responsibility – no right exists without boundaries. Further, a hierarchy of rights can be determined, although legal avenues (i.e., Charter challenges) are usually relied upon to decide these priorities. Still, even when determined by the highest courts in the land, this hierarchy is not immune from further question and modification: the likelihood is that exceptions – particular contexts in which the hierarchy is no longer appropriate – exist. These circumstances cannot be established a priori but must be recognized through analysis on an individual basis as (or if) they emerge.

So, my original position endures – while I don’t think that it is immediately achievable without resort to the stepping stone approach embodied by Canada’s current model of Human Rights as expressed in Section 15 of the Canadian Charter and Section 11 of the Ontario Code. – I do believe that France is astonishingly forward thinking, brave, and on the right track with the legislation in so far as it limits ONLY public displays of religious belief (as opposed to private display and practice) as a cultural imperative designed to eliminate the harmful negative effects of religion as demonstrable in social history and continuing today.

 

[LeatherDoll]

Dammit, I'm not saying it again ....

Canada's approach is the better of the two, for now!

I will respond further - but I am exhausted right now and want a break an time to recoup my energy. Remember, I used to derive benefits beyond a sense of personal satisfaction in presenting this information that made it somewhat easier to justify the hours of analytic expression; I used to get paid for this stuff!

Coming up - Part 6: My Personal Views on Religion and Spirituality.

Part 7: Specifically addressing some of your reasonable concerns - particularly around silencing and the possibility of forcing "underground" seclusion of religious groups.

In the meantime, I do acknowledge all of your misgivings, but the counsellor in me (as opposed to the Human Rights activist) can't help but to suggest they reflect only the typical human response that fearfully embraces, and therefore rejects, the notion of change, regardless of its ability to positively affect our living conditions by reducing the negative influence imposed by other people's power and control issues on one's ability to fully and freely participate in all societal opportunities and partake (or succeed and fail without discrimination in obtaining) all benefits offered.

Ultimately, the goal of Human Rights legislation is to achieve social change and eliminate descrimination and differential opportunity through the imposition of limits on behaviour, particularly in public.

I ask, from a seriously humble position (as opposed to sneering name calling), that you examine your position in light of this question: Is your reluctance to see the long-term necessity of this approach, new only when applied to public religious expression being fueled (and, perhaps, exagerated in its implications) by this very common response to change - it is, after all, one of the strongest, most prominent, common, and (lack of) motivating fears expressed in our Western culture.

It is important to recognize that traditional approaches have only led us to our current state - which, in terms of Human Rights, is abymal - even in Canada where we are ahead of the rest of the world.

We already impose many such restrictions that speak to other Human Rights grounds- particularly the expression of sexuality in the workplace (both employment and education) - where it has been widely accepted that its introduction (and imposition) is inappropriate because it adversely impacts an individual's right not to have these displays present lest they make it impossible for an individual to achieve their goals by creating an environment that is poisonous or where opportunities for success are removed by abuse of power associated with sexual inferences and advances.

Why is it that expression of religion, even though its adverse effect has long been demonstrated, feels different for you? While sexuality is certainly controversial and does give rise to negative behaviour, it has certainly not yielded the level of xenophobia, intolerance, hatred, persecution, violence, genocide, slavery, or a host of other adverse impacts that all historic and contemporary anylsis demonstrate. To suggest that, despite this, it should not be addressed through a Human Rights approach, seems, to me, ludicrously illogical.

Following this reasoning, Franc e is not attempting anything new - it is simply extending its legislative scope and forecast to account for long term goals in recognition of the negative cultural influence that is attributable to (public displays of) religion.

 

[pool]

LeatherDoll ... could you please elaborate ? : ) ... jk

I'm going to ponder this whole "equation", but It's not that I don't understand your viewpoint ( at least, I think I do ). It's just that I find the oppression of an individuals ability to follow their beliefs in public an insensitive intrusion and in it's converse is something that I, in fact, value as an inhabitant of Canada. I'm afraid I do not do not see the human rights situation in Canada on the whole as anything remotely resembling "abysmal", even though there is a long way to go on certain fronts.

I said earlier that I thought their motivation may be well intended, but the more I think about this specific issue, the more I sense it is likely politically motivated and the bottom line may be that it stems, in part, from Islamaphobia.

This hegemonic approach just doesn't sit well with me and I don't see it as particularly bold or brave, but rather stemming from fear. I tend to doubt that anyone involved in this issue took long term results into consideration on any realistic level.

At this point I will not deny that long term, things will reciprocally align toward the good of all, but as I think you recognise, along the way conflict and fall out will be an issue, no matter how negligible in the bigger picture. I don't think that we can directly compare the dynamics of Canada to those of France as they are different historically, politically and geographically.

OK, OK, I'll go and ponder, but the fact we don't entirely agree is, in part, the reason that things evolve toward the greater good of all, in the end ...

...

 

[Don]

I simply think it fits with their history of protecting French culture - more looking back than looking forward.


bbk

For more examples of this attitude, simply look to the east!

 

[C Dick]

I have a question about distributive justice, in particular about the idea that the goal is for protected groups to achieve the same proportional success rate at whatever that other groups achieve.

How does this analysis account for different characteristics in different groups of people? It is my belief that some protected groups are not simply different on the basis of identifiable characteristics (e.g. you can tell who the female graduate students are), but in some cases they are different in ways that would be expected to affect their success. How do you determine how much of the group relative failure is due to discrimination versus to meaningful characteristics of the group? Or is it assumed that all differences in outcome can only be attributed to discrimination?

 

[sweet guy]

Though I don't have good impression on the French arrogance on everything Anglos, I grudgingly admit France has the balls to reinforce the spirit of secularism.

The Dutch, Danes and Swedes are even better than the French on this issue.

By comparison Canada is not as successful as the French to legislate laws to protect minorities from vicious, hate crimes in the name of God.

Still, Canada is relatively more open minded than the United States. At least, Canada hasn't been polarized and divided into two between....in American politics jargons, secular liberals and religious conservatives....yet.

 

[The_Jaded_One]

Let freedom reign. You cannot become a tolerant society through intolerance.

 

[LeatherDoll]

Sorry. A quick bunch of notes for the moment

I'm so sorry to have seemingly abandoned this thread guys ....

I've just been swamped with other priorities.

It has been a really good discussion, and I know we are not done ... so, you tell me, should we pick it up again later this week when my work jam is done?

BTW, bb, I'm not sure why you think I was getting testy (as in angry at someone) ... not true. I actually tried really hard to make sure that was clear.

And, I do understand your point, and yours, too, pool. Don't get me wrong guys - I agree with a great deal of your concerns and fears -- that is why I say it is a long term goal. And yes, I'm not even sure that the very specifics of France's ruling are appropriate, but, in terms of the "pure" human rights analysis, the elimination of the imposition of religion into public spaces is a very desirable goal. And, remember, that I also don't deny that there will be instances of exceptions to the general rule (remember, always 3 questions in a context before a decision of the acceptability of an action in a human rights decision) - so that something like the conversion of Downsview Park into a place of prayer for the visit of the Pope would still be allowed.

C Dick - good question. I wish I was able to find a figure, it would be so much easier. The distributive justice is about proportional representation of group to itself when comparing the outcome to the population from which the "successful" candidates are drawn.

That is, even though there may be other factors, including historical disadvantage, that make the representation in a qualified pool of candidates of a protected group disproportional to its representation in the population as a whole - when testing the systemic or adverse impact of a particular instance of a "rule" the distribution of the outcome of success (i.e., those who "pass" the test of the rule) as a function of group should still resemble the distribution of the groups membership in the population to whom the rule was applied (i.e., job applicants, for example, if testing a selection process).

Jaded - nice thought - of course, you realize that it is just a meaningless statement that appears to suggest/forward some human rights sentiment, but, in fact, no substance, right? What exactly does it mean in the context of the topic of the thread - keep religion out of the picture so its imposition of intolerance does not affect those who do not wish to participate, or, equally probable - Let people do whatever they want in public and "tolerate" its imposition upon us?

Tolerance is usually the problem - that is, silence, or no response (i.e., tolerance) in the face of inappropriate and offensive behaviour - because we don't want to make a scene or get involved in "someone else's business" - is what allows that bad behaviour to continue.

Finally, before I run back to my work ... yes, bb, what you say is true of harassment because of sex/gender. However, public displays of sexual imagery is another version - pin ups, calendars, sexual jokes, etc. are not acceptable on the walls in a public place because they impose an unfriendly "attitude" or sexual chargeinto the environment which is not welcome by others. This is comparable to religious imagery.

I wish we all had all the time in the world to do nothing but have these types of discussions. I used to be lucky enough for it to be my job, but for now ....

Gotta run.

Let me know if you want to continue. Otherwise, thank you all for a really good discussion. (And we'll bring back the actual discussion on religion versus spirituality into another thread some time - I've, of course, given it a lot of thought and would love to share it)

LD

 

[The_Jaded_One]

Re: Sorry. A quick bunch of notes for the moment

Jaded - nice thought - of course, you realize that it is just a meaningless statement that appears to suggest/forward some human rights sentiment, but, in fact, no substance, right? What exactly does it mean in the context of the topic of the thread - keep religion out of the picture so its imposition of intolerance does not affect those who do not wish to participate, or, equally probable - Let people do whatever they want in public and "tolerate" its imposition upon us?

Tolerance is usually the problem - that is, silence, or no response (i.e., tolerance) in the face of inappropriate and offensive behaviour - because we don't want to make a scene or get involved in "someone else's business" - is what allows that bad behaviour to continue.

What I said is not meaningless. It is a simple statement of fact. You cannot become a tolerant society through intolerance. Limiting freedom of expression in public amounts to intolerance.

Personally I find your stance to be somewhat hypocritical. It is a fact that at one point the majority of people didn't want to see gay pride. That cause is near and dear to you though. If we had taken your stance on conformity and limitations on public expression of beliefs, that movement would have been squashed for being "inappropriate and offensive behaviour". Society is never better off by not allowing people to freely express themselves in public. Truth and enlightenment is found in tolerance and individual freedoms (which include being able to express yourself however you please).

PS - How do you define religion? Isn't religion just a personal belief system?

 

[C Dick]

I am still unclear about distributive justice. Perhaps an example would be helpful.

If 50% of the graduate students are female, and 40% of the applicants by graduate students to be on the faculty are female, and 20% of the applicants who are hired are female, is this an example of a distributive injustice? Should the rules be skewed until 40% of the successful applicants are female?