Daily Archives: August 25, 2013

Why Quebec’s Proposed Headgear Law is Wrong


The Province of Quebec is proposing to ban the wearing of any and all religious headgear (including hijabs, turbans and yarmulkes, as well as other religious symbols) from public facilities and public service – affecting teachers, hospital workers, daycare workers, nurses, civil servants and (we assume) politicians.

The law would also cover “ostentatious” crucifixes, which has led to darkly humorous speculation about police stopping people to measure the size of their crucifix.

What about a tattoo of a giant “Om” on someone’s back? Would the owner have to remove it? Cover it up?

What about priests’ collars or nuns’ habits, worn in every Catholic school in the province. They’re public sector, aren’t they?

Atheist AAnd what about displays of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Evolvefish? Or the red atheist “A”? Atheist symbols aren’t religious, so would they be exempt under this new law? *

It would be a bad law, as bad if not worse than the province’s repressive language laws. And it will spark innumerable challenges based on the Charter of Rights’ declaration of religious freedom.**

Not long ago, Quebec’s soccer federation tried to ban the wearing of Sikh turbans on the field. Why? Do turbans proffer a hithertofore unknown benefit to the wearers; performance-enhancing headgear like drugs? Or the opposite? The federation mumbled incoherently about safety, although there has been no turban-related injury ever recorded.

Could it be that turbans have no effect whatsoever on the player or his game and it was just racially-motivated? The general consensus was the latter, and the federation had to backtrack and rescind the ban after it became an international issue. The backlash was embarrassing and awkward, but the PQ government stood by the soccer federation.

While the PQ government – Canada’s answer to the Tea Party, it seems – remains tight-lipped about the upcoming ban on religious displays, the speculation is that Quebec wants to enforce a secular state by legislation. It has announced plans to release a Quebec secular “values” document this fall.

Clearly they haven’t learned from history: Lenin and his successors tried to do that and failed. The more the state interferes with religion, the more it thrives. I suspect that this attempt by the PQ will galvanize the province’s fading Catholicism.  Nothing like a good punch-up to bring out the believers. Britain has its soccer hooligans; Quebec may have its Catholic hooligans if this passes.***

Values cannot be legislated. Instilled, taught, expressed and promoted, but – like taste and talent – not legislated. Lead by example, Marois, not by the iron fist.

Continue reading

Creating an Age-Friendly Community


AgingThe most interesting and inspiring seminar I attended during the recent AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) convention was “Synergies for Senior Friendly Communities.” It was about creating “age-friendly communities,” not simply for seniors, but heavily tilted in their direction.*

Speakers included Mario Sergio, Minister responsible for seniors (Ontario Seniors’ Secretariat); Mayor Debbie Amaroso, of Sault Ste. Marie, Mayor Jim Watson, of Ottawa; and Dr. John Lewis, associate professor of planning for the University of Waterloo. I also benefitted by sitting beside Mayor Rick Hamilton, of Elliot Lake, who gave me commentary from his town’s perspective on many of the issues raised, as well as speaking to me afterwards about specific issues I questioned.

The session provided a lot of ideas and processes that I believe we can bring to Collingwood. We do many things right, here, and we have a generally senior-friendly community, but the seminar told me we can – and should – do more. And it talked about the need to formalize our approach, strategize and create a long-range plan. We can’t do this ad hoc.

Provided for all participants were two publications: “Finding the Right Fit: Age-Friendly Community Planning,” a 112-page manual produced by the Province’s Seniors’ Secretariat, and the City of Ottawa’s 40-page “Older Adult Plan, 2012-2014.” Both are invaluable guides for the process. The Secretariat also publishes “A Guide to Programs and Services for Seniors in Ontario.” All of these are available in PDF format, online.

AFC is a designation, not simply a philosophy or policy behind planning and recreational activity programming. You have to apply for the designation, perform several steps, and obtain your certificate from the World Health Organization (WHO). As the WHO site notes,

The WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities (GNAFCC) was established to foster the exchange of experience and mutual learning between cities and communities worldwide. Any city or community that is committed to creating inclusive and accessible urban environments to benefit their ageing populations is welcome to join.

Cities and communities in the Network are of different sizes and are located in different parts of the world. Their efforts to become more age-friendly take place within very diverse cultural and socio-economic contexts. What all members of the Network do have in common is the desire and commitment to create physical and social urban environments that promote healthy and active ageing and a good quality of life for their older residents.

There’s nothing onerous in the process, but it has to be followed closely to avoid being rejected. The WHO recommends a 1-2 year planning process of four steps:

  1. Establishment of mechanisms to involve older people throughout the Age-friendly City cycle.
  2. A baseline assessment of the age-friendliness of the city.
  3. Development of a 3-year city wide plan of action based on assessment findings.
  4. Identification of indicators to monitor progress.

This should be followed by an implementation program in years 3 to 5. WHO notes:

On completion of stage 1, and no later than two years after joining the Network, cities will submit their action plan to WHO for review and endorsement. Upon endorsement by WHO, cities will then have a three-year period of implementation.

Following this, there’s an evaluation process at the end of year 5.

At the end of the first period of implementation, cities will be required to submit a progress report to WHO outlining progress against indicators developed in stage 1.

Nothing we can’t do here. In fact, I think we could become a shining example for AFCs in Southern Ontario.

Continue reading