Home Page News Opinion Foreign Policy Politics Policy Legislation Lobbying Hill Life & People Hill Climbers Heard On The Hill Calendar Archives Classifieds
Advertising Subscribe Reuse & Permissions
Hill Times Events Hill Times Books Hill Times Careers The Wire Report The Lobby Monitor Parliament Now
Opinion

How much tolerance is too much?

By Phil Gurski      

What happens when the freedoms of some begin to impinge on the freedoms of others? A few recent incidents in Montreal have raised some very real concerns and force us to face the possibility that in a liberal democracy, not everything should be allowed.

Recent events have raised a lot of debate and emotion in Montreal about intolerance and religious freedoms, writes Phil Gurski. Photograph courtesy of John Lian, Wikimedia Commons.

Living in a liberal democracy is generally a good thing. Not that there aren’t problems that arise from time to time, but those who abide by liberal (in the classic sense of the word) values tend to be open to a great deal of diversity, as long as the overall tenor of society is not undermined. In Canada at least, that means you can speak whatever language you want, practice whatever culture you want, and worship any creed you want. More or less.

So what happens when the freedoms of some begin to impinge on the freedoms of others? A few recent incidents in Montreal have raised some very real concerns and force us to face the possibility that in a liberal democracy, not everything should be allowed. This is, of course, a very tough concept for such societies to consider as it goes against basic principles.

The two incidents to which I am referring involve religion. Recently, a Muslim proposal to bring in “Islamic mortgages”—in itself not an objectionable issue—turned nasty when one of those petitioning for this financial arrangement noted that anyone seeking a house in a new, proposed “Muslim neighbourhood” would have to respect the “values” of the neighbours. “If you want to drink alcohol, you drink it in your house” said the developer proposing the neighbourhood, Nabil Warda. He added that women could choose whether or not to wear a headscarf, but they could not walk around in a halter-top and shorts. “There must be some modesty in the way you dress,” he added. “We don’t want women living there going half-naked down the streets. We don’t like that.”

In the Hasidic community, there is a heated debate with the city over the building of a new synagogue and allegations of unfair restrictions placed on the growing Jewish enclave. Mind you, it is important to remember that this same community claiming inequality also sought to ban bathing suits in local parks. In an even more egregious demand of religious fascism, several years ago, another Hasidic group asked a local YMCA to tint its windows so that yeshiva students would not have to look at women doing yoga. Not surprisingly, these events have raised a lot of debate and emotion in a province already rife with allegations of intolerance; whether or not there is a problem with acceptance in Quebec is another matter.

Canada is a pretty good place to live and we boast of our multicultural values and openness to people from all over the world. Canada is rightly held up as a model for liberty and tolerance in a time where both are in deep trouble. But, there has to be a reasonable limit on accommodating demands such as these. Just about everything must be allowed so far as it does not take away the rights of others who are different.

You might be asking, at this point, what any of this has to do with terrorism—the usual topic covered in my articles. Nothing really, but there is a hook. The Jews and Muslims of Montreal who are seeking to impose their cultural or religious views on outsiders are not terrorists by any stretch of the imagination, but they are certainly intolerant of difference—and, interestingly, they accuse those who oppose their plans of intolerance. We know that terrorism is an act born of intolerance. Terrorists like those who join IS will kill anyone who does not hew to their narrow interpretation of Islam and society.

I have said it before and I’ll repeat it here: I am not a believer in slippery slopes or gateway argumentation when it comes to terrorism. In fact, it is highly doubtful that those who propose intolerant cultural or religious practices in Montreal will resort to violence if they do not get their way.

At the same time, these requests must be rejected as undemocratic and illiberal; they do not belong in a country like Canada. We Canadians may be seen as nice, but we do have our limits. There are occasions on which those limits are reasonable, and where the state has a right—and a duty—to impose them. This is one of those occasions.

More in News

Feds lowballing parliamentary budget officer’s salary, say ex-PBO officials

News|By Emily Haws
The government is looking to pay the next parliamentary budget officer way less than it should, which could lead to it picking the wrong person for the job, say a former PBO and his ex-deputy.…

MPs defend taking trips paid by lobbyists, foreign governments, but some say the practice needs review

Some Liberal and Conservative MPs say rules that permit lobby groups and foreign governments to pay for MPs' trips abroad warrant review, including regarding limits on the value of free trips and where lobbyists fit…

Senate urged to expand bill to clear more LGBTQ criminal convictions

After getting rushed through the House, advocates are calling for the Senate to pump the brakes on the government’s bill wiping out historical unjust convictions and to broaden the legislation’s scope to add more offences…

Feds ‘not ready’ to roll out cannabis legalization given ‘huge gap’ in police training: critics

Police won’t be ready to properly test Canadians for drug impairment when cannabis is legalized, say critics who point to “terrible” new data showing 665 Canadian police officers as of Feb. 1 are certified to…

‘I think it’s done,’ NDP MP Stewart doubts Trans Mountain pipeline expansion’s viability, but feds say it’s going to happen

News|By Emily Haws
As the federal Liberals face mounting pressure to get the $7.4-billion Trans Mountain pipeline expansion approved, NDP MP Kennedy Stewart, who was arrested for protesting the pipeline in March, says he doubts it will actually…

‘Crystal clear’ feds have jurisdiction on $7.4-billion Trans Mountain pipeline: here’s how they could ‘reinforce’ it

There’s no doubt that the federal government has authority to approve the Trans Mountain pipeline, says a pair of constitutional lawyers, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s promised legislation to “reinforce” that right could sweep aside…

Senate seeks intervener status to back House BOIE in ongoing court battle with NDP

The NDP’s court challenge of the House Board of Internal Economy’s 2014 order for NDP MPs to repay almost $4-million in expenses continues, with the Senate now seeking intervener status to support the BOIE’s appeal…

B.C. Liberal MPs tout environmental measures in Trans Mountain talks with constituents, but opposition MPs say Grits to ‘absolutely’ lose support in 2019

British Columbia Liberal MPs say they're touting environmental investments and protections brought in by the Liberal government for the $7.4-billion Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project with constituents, with some suggesting their voters are split roughly…

Liberals could revert to third-party status if MPs ignore constituents’ concerns, warns rookie Grit MP

News|By Abbas Rana
Liberals jumped from the third-party status to win a majority government in the 2015 general election, but they could easily revert to their pre-election status if Grit MPs don't reach out regularly to constituents before…