Free Parking for Observant Jews In Montreal, Others Better Pay Up.

Old-school Montreal parking meter. (source)

So I was reading about the controversy surrounding free parking for the religious in some small towns in the UK over at Hemant Mehta's blog, Free Parking for the Religious in This British Town, but Atheists Are Out of Luck.

This reminded me of a post that I've been meaning to put out there about the increasingly heated debate on secularism here in Quebec.

PQ minister criticizes parking accommodation for observant Jews

Yes, I know it's way back in May. This whole house-buying thing has really thrown me behind my post schedule. Anyway, I have been hinting at increased debate up here about Secularism and the separation of religion and politics for awhile. There's a lot going on!

On the one hand, we have the Court of Appeals ruling that prayer before city council meeting is just fine in Saguenay.  On the other hand, we have the provincial government telling Jews to just suck it up when it comes to the election falling on the Jewish holy day Rosh Hashanah. And really, that's just the tip of the iceberg. There is also Turbangate where the Quebec Soccer Federation told Sikhs to just eat it and take their turbans off while playing soccer. More on that one later.

So anyway, back to the special parking rules for observant Jews.

Quebec Citizenship Minister Bernard Drainville has criticized a tradition in a west-end Montreal borough which accommodates the Jewish holiday of Shavuot. 

For nearly three decades, municipal authorities in Côte-des-Neiges—Notre-Dame-de-Grace have removed parking restrictions at that time, to allow observant Jews not to have to move their cars.

Yeah, so basically, every year around this time, special coverings are placed over the parking meters so  Jews can leave their cars parked on the street without incurring a ticket. This is because they are not allowed to operate motor vehicles during this time.  It says so in the holy book.  It's 2,000 years old so it must be true and we're supposed to respect it.

How did all of this get started? Apparently there's been no problem with this for the past 30 years.

NYC Potholes (source).

Well, there was a complaint filed by some very dedicated blue-collar city employees who were frustrated at being pulled away from their pothole-filling duties to bag some parking signs around synagogues.

The issue was raised this week by some municipal blue collar workers, who complained they'd been taken off pothole-filling and other duties in order to cover up parking signs for the Shavuot holiday on Wednesday.

Where are these dedicated pothole fillers?  Because, a cursory look around Montreal streets implies they may be the only ones in town.

I cannot resist making a little side comment here. I think that if the temporary redirection of some city workers to cover some signs has any measurable impact on the rate of pothole-filling in this city than we need more city workers filling potholes.

Okay, anyway.  On principle, I get what the pothole-fillers are  saying.

PQ Minister Bernard Drainville - the very same who said we can't go around bowing to churches and synagogues when we plan our elections - had this to say about free parking for Jews.

"You cannot start having parking rules that are different according to your religion," Drainville said Wednesday. "There will be no end to it." 

"How can we live together in the same society, if we start having different parking regulations according to different religions?"

I don't know if it's at the top of my priority list, but I again, I get his point.

I mean, while these people get to leave their cars sitting at the side of the road, parking places are taken up that others may wish to use. My taxes are paying for these government workers to put up these coverings. Parking meters are not pulling in revenue for the city (or wherever revenue goes in this corrupt place. hint: not the streets ).

An NDG city councillor defends the practice using tactics we've seen before concerning state-religion entanglement: Everyone does it - even Vancouver and Toronto!

“We’re not the only municipality that does it. We’re not the only municipality in Quebec that does it, either. It’s essentially a Montreal value to promote tolerance and cooperation,” Rotrand told CBC’s Daybreak program. “We don’t do anything that Toronto and Vancouver don’t do.”

I'm not sure if I would equate tolerance with the granting of special parking privileges.  Nobody is stopping them from having their holiday. Nobody is forcing them to drive their cars to the synagogue and park them on city streets.

But back to the tactics. Even the author of the article chips in the most common one:  We've been doing it for a really long time! Nobody's complained yet, so it must be just fine!

For nearly three decades the Montreal district has eased parking restrictions so that observant Jews don’t have to move their cars to avoid getting a ticket during the holiday.

Well that just about settles it!

No sign of what would happen if a Catholic, Buddhist or atheist demanded his own parking accommodation.  What if they simply parked their cars on the street with the covered meters as soon as they were put on? Would they be forced to move their cars?

Anyway, Barbara has a clever and funny solution to the problem.

Surely there is a compromise solution? I’m glad you asked, because I have one. 

I suggest the synagogues in the relevant areas hire what used to be known as a “shabbas goy.” The Shabbas goy was – perhaps still is? – a gentile, obviously not bound by restrictions against work, who would come to the observant family’s home on Shabbat and holidays to turn lights on and off, start ovens and perform whatever other tasks were forbidden to family members. In this case the “parking goy” could move all the cars to the other side of the street whenever necessary at a nugatory cost to each individual.

Yeah. Okay. I guess that would work out fine. And you know what, I have absolutely no problem with this solution. In fact, I know someone who was actually paid to go on vacation with an Orthodox Jewish family and cook and operate all things electrical for them.  So I know it's done.

... Or they could just settle for what I would have to do if I had to park my car somewhere for awhile. Find somewhere to put it. Around the block or even at home and take a bus or a taxi.

... Or the synagogue could arrange parking at a local parking lot.  They could even have people bussed in and out for a very reasonable fee, I'm sure.

Look, parking in this city is a scarce resource and for the past eight years I've had to move my car twice a week without fail from one side of my street to the other to avoid a ticket. Everyone needs to do this - it's the rules.  So if Jews at this synagogue need to make special arrangements, then sure - whatever it takes. But no special privileges. Make arrangements like everyone else.

You know, stuff that normal people who do not have the city accommodating them with special parking benefits have to do to avoid tickets.  People like me. People like everyone else.

Bible Inscribed And Signed By Albert Einstein Selling For A Mere $2,000

Big Al with Little Al ... wearing a dress?

You know, $2,000 just isn't what it used to be. The Apple computer I'm typing this on cost me nearly $2,000. The A/C unit that's cooling my house ran me over $2,000.  But one thing you can get these days for $2,000 is a Bible autographed by Albert Einstein himself!

Albert Einstein inscribed Bible has mere $2,000 estimate

Come on, it's cheap. Okay, they're practically giving Bibles away for free these days - can't even check into a bloody hotel room without finding one in the side table drawer, I know.

In the inscription to their American friend, Harriet Hamilton, Einstein states that he has found the Bible a source of "inexhaustible wisdom". 

The letter reveals the striking change in Einstein's attitude to "the good book" over the course of his life, possibly a direct result of the Holocaust. 

Certainly by 1954 Einstein was expressing a wholly different view, stating in a letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind that the Bible was a "collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish", adding that God is "nothing more than the expression of human weaknesses".

Oh, the letter sold in 2008 for $266,500.  An impression of his handprints sold for $85,000, and correspondence between the theoretical physicist and socialist philosopher Corliss Lamont went for around $11,000.

So anyone want a an autographed Bible?  Anyone?

You know. You could simply tear out the first page, hang it on your wall and leave the Bible in some bookshelf somewhere like most people do.

Word Back From Conservative MP About Persecution of Atheists: "Try calling the ORF".

Conservative MP Bev Shipley

So a few days ago I did a post on Motion 382, put forward by Conservative MP Bev Shipley and passed this past April.

On the whole, I thought it was a pretty good motion. It just suffered from one critical flaw: it didn't ever recognize the existence of those non-religious who are persecuted for their lack of belief in a country's dominant religion.

So I wrote Bev the following e-mail.  It's not the most elegant piece of prose, but I didn't particularly expect a response anyway.

Dear Mr Shipley, 

I recently read about the passing of Motion 382. Congratulations on this achievement!
I wrote about this recently on my personal blog: 

http://www.mysecretatheistblog.com/2013/06/secularism-misrepresented-conservative.html 

I was surprised that you were surprised that the Bloc agreed to go along. I put up a theory of mine - the secularist nature of that party - but on second thought, I would like to get your opinion on this in case you had a different reason for being surprised. 

Being a secularist myself, I support your bill.   I have severe reservations about the Office of Religious Freedom, but I would vote for your bill in the name of all those who are being badly persecuted because of their religious belief. I subscribe to "Gospel for Asia's" newsletter and I read about these problems in India. 

The only thing I take some issue with is the situation for many non-religious people in highly theocratic countries across the world. 

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/cfe/ 

Your bill would have been perfect if it included the plight of the non-believer who is being persecuted for being an "apostate". 

Please share your thoughts on this. 

Thank you!  

I really thought it would be good to get Bev's input on this, or at least let him know what I did make a few hypotheses in the post about why he may have found himself surprised that the Quebec government took the same position as him on his bill.

Well, a couple of days later, to my surprise, I get this response from one of his assistants.

Dear Mr <   >, 

On behalf of Mr. Shipley, I acknowledge receipt of your email. Thank you for your interest in his Motion 382 on Religious Freedom. Mr. Shipley recommends you contact the Ambassador of the Office of Religious Freedom with your concerns surrounding discrimination of “apostates”. 

Regards,
Sarah Brown
Parliamentary Assistant to
Bev Shipley, MP
SW Ontario Caucus Chair
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
613-947-4581

I guess this means the e-mail was passed on to him and he read it? So I presume he now knows about the plight of persecuted atheists and non-religious folk around the world?  I guess so.

Sadly, Mr. Shipley doesn't have much to say about the situation of so many of our international brothers and sisters in non-belief - although he has a great deal to say about the reverse situation.  He did champion and pass a bill that appears to work for the human rights of pretty much everyone except the non-religious when it comes to religious persecution around the world.

This isn't particularly surprising. One shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was done intentionally at all. The atheist community is so small across the world and so silent (often for its own survival) that it often doesn't make it onto people's radar.

And as for not jumping to our aid after being reminded about atheists, I really shouldn't be surprised by his response either, especially after I did a little more research on Shipley.

The rightwing watchdog website Reform Parliament's Watchdog sums up Shipley's positions on social issues like this:

What ever possessed me to write this guy? Here's some information I dug up myself since the above site is sort of old and it's not good to rely on just one reference.

Abortion:

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today. Each of them calls on the House to enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible. These individuals have a strong personal conviction for the protection of the unborn. 

The petitions come from Grace Canadian Reformed Church in Kerwood, the Providence United Reformed Church in Strathroy, the Association for Reformed Political Action, and also the students and teachers at Providence Reformed Collegiate.

In fact, Campaign Life Coalition gives Shipley a "green light" when it comes to abortion issues. This is a red light for me.

Same-Sex Marriage:

That is what this whole debate is about. It is about the fundamentals of what this country was based on. It is about the definition of marriage and it is about the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of others.

 Fundamentalist church:

Bev is an active member of Community Bible Church, Middlesex Centre, and is a volunteer in numerous community organizations.

If you check out the Community Bible Church About Us page you'll find that they "believe that the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the written Word of God and, therefore, inerrant in the original documents and absolutely authoritative." I wasn't able to find his position on Evolution, but I can only guess it's likely to be not so good.

So this guy is obviously not going to be too helpful and publicly denouncing the poor treatment of non-believers in the name of religion is just not his department.  His kind assistant did let me know who is supposed to deal with this particular matter: a smallish government office by the name of the Office of Religious Freedom.  Gee, never heard of it. Gee, I wonder who heads it.

Mr. Shipley recommends you contact the Ambassador of the Office of Religious Freedom with your concerns surrounding discrimination of “apostates”. 

So apparently it is the job of Andrew Bennett's ORF to protect the rights and freedoms of the unbelievers. Well, at least from the pen of Bev Shipley. Unfortunately, the atheist community has gone down that path before and Bennett has even commented:

So the concerns of atheists, I understand it. And we will monitor it. And we will speak out if we need to. But I think we can’t lose sight of the fact that disproportionately the people being persecuted for freedom of religion are believe

Oh bureaucracy! Oh typical government run-around! Was not Rome just like this before its Decline and Fall? Oh, Fie.

For fun, I responded back asking if I could have a direct e-mail for Bennett, since I am rather keen to send him an e-mail with these concerns.

Dear Mr. < >,

Upon making inquiries, I have been provided with the below contact address for Ambassador Bennett.

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Attn: Office of Religious Freedom
125 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0G2

You may also wish to check their website for information on the office: http://www.international.gc.ca/religious_freedom-liberte_de_religion/index.aspx.

Have a nice evening.

Sincerely,

Sarah Brown
Parliamentary Assistant to
Bev Shipley, MP
SW Ontario Caucus Chair
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
613-947-4581

No direct e-mail there. 

Now apparently, Bennett is also dean of Augustine College, so I could try dean@augustinecollege.org.

But I think I'll try out good old ink and paper. It got me a letter back from John Baird.  Perhaps I'll get one from Andrew Bennett to add to my collection.

Quebec Government Refuses to Move Election Day Which Clashes With Religious Holiday: Ergo, Intolerant

Adat Shalom Synagogue- Rosh Hashanah service at Adat Shalom Synagogue

Rabbi Jacob Segal, Morris Hadrick and Cantor Nicholas Fenakel (source)

As I mentioned in a previous post, issues of secularism and state reasonable accommodation of specific needs of certain religious groups within the province is really heating up. And all this is happening, coincidentally (yeah sure), just as the government is trying to push through their new Secular Charter.

With all the house renovations going on, it's hard for me to keep up. So I've got things to say, just no time to say them. Bloody frustrating. How am I supposed to concentrate on issues of secularism when I gotta figure out when the heck my kitchen is supposed to get redone?

Anyway, the latest controversy has to do with the Government's Bill 3 which would introduce fixed election dates in Quebec - a good idea.  So they came up with the first Monday of October. Sounds okay, right? Wrong! Oh how wrong you are.

Unfortunately, if we go with the very first Monday of 2016 it falls on a major Jewish holiday, Rosh Hashanah. And this, of course, is intolerant.

PQ accused of intolerance over fixed election date: PQ's first planned election, Oct. 3, 2016, falls on Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah

"You choose one of the most important holidays for a specific community, it excludes 85,000 people from voting on that particular day," said Liberal MP Lawrence Bergman. "For me, that's unacceptable." 

However, the PQ minister responsible for democratic institutions, Bernard Drainville, says setting the date based on religion is an unreasonable accomodation.

"There's more than 100 religious holidays." Drainville countered. "You cannot start saying we're going to allow for the postponing of the vote according to one religion." 

Drainville points out that anyone who can't vote on election day for religious reasons has several other opportunities to vote, either at the advance polls or at the election office in each constituency.

For me, as a secularist atheist, the date should be determined by how much it will cost, plain and simple. I'd be a little peeved if it fell on my birthday, though. But even then, I'd vote. Because I consider the good functioning of our government and democracy more important than my birthday or my favourite TV show - or some religious mythology from 3000 years ago.

It really comes down to priorities. What's more important? A working democracy that represents you or your religious beliefs.  But still - the whole question is why should people be forced to make these choices?

Now, I do see how putting this date in October would avoid pretty much all the important Christian holidays. This goes along with the government's new Secular Charter which, in an early incarnation at least, would ban all religious symbols in government - except the big Catholic cross in the National Assembly, because it's part of the province's national heritage.  (So then put it into a museum with the statues of Zeus and Athena and all the other religious relics of a era bygone!)

Brendan Edge, in a letter to the editor at the Montreal Gazette, makes this very sane point.

Very well, if that’s the case, then I ask Mr. Drainville to declassify Christmas and Easter as holidays. I ask him to hold an election or some other important event on either Christmas or Easter. 

If he is comfortable with taking away those holidays, then let him go ahead with this plan. But if he hesitates on disregarding Christmas, then let Bill 3 be struck down as it stands and the PQ’s charter of secularism be shown again for the farce it is.

Yes, I agree. It's sad to say, but ever since the very beginning, I cannot help but see this as a glaring double standard and I see it as being a nail in the Charter's coffin. You can't have halfway secularism. It has to be fair.  As I mentioned before, I don't have a problem with elections on December 25th as an atheist. But, I suspect the PQ would never dare.

'There's a sense of nastiness there, a sense of intolerance,'

I'm afraid that, as much as I am a secularist and have a healthy disdain for religion as well, I also sense a sort of opportunism around this latest round of reasonable accommodation debates here in Quebec. It's like the government is using the good name of secularism here in Quebec to stir up passions to fuel their political ticket. Like in France, maybe.

I think the majority of Quebecers are warm to the idea of secularism and it is not a bad word like in the rest of the country and in America. I fear that, as in France, the PQ government may be stirring up secularist passions here in Quebec for votes. And in the end, I fear they may go too far, too fast imposing secularism (which is a good thing) upon non-Catholic groups, while doing too little, too slowly removing Roman Catholic symbolism from government. Hence, they would keep no friends in either the religious anti-secularist or non-religious secularist camps.  They'd be alone.

But maybe I've also grown so accustomed to religious privilege that even I see any redress as nastiness?

As for this particular problem, I feel sort of torn.  In principle it shouldn't matter that the election is held on any religion's sacred day. But Brendan Edge brings up a good point in his letter to the editor. The system is already skewed.  So maybe we should move the date and just move on with more important matters?  How about summer?

So complicated. Back to getting the kitchen renovated.