This cartoon by cartoonist Pascal from the September 13 2013 Montreal Gazette deals with the Charter of Quebec Values proposed by the ruling Parti Quebecois. In the cartoon, the Charter of Quebec Values is portrayed as a vicious monster who is salivating over the possible destruction of the Quebec Charter of Rights. The Quebec Charter of Values would ban the wearing of any "overt and conspicuous religious symbols by state personnel in carrying out their duties". That includes judges, police, school teachers, hospital workers, municipal employees and judges.    It also bans any clothing that would cover the face of anyone who wants to receive government services. 

A recent poll says that the charter has strong support for Quebecois from outside urban areas, the middle-aged, people with less than a high school education, and people for whom French is their mother tongue.

Should religious symbols be banned?  If so, why?  Does banning the wearing of religious symbols interfere with the rights and freedoms of the individual over the collective norms of society? Should common "values" trump individual "rights"?

The image to the left shows symbols that would not be allowed under the charter.  The main reason given by the government is to affirm the equality of men and women and to unify the people of the province. According to the government, " This restriction would reflect the state’s neutrality. "

What message is the cartoon conveying?  How is it linked to liberalism?  The source is trying to say that when a government action interferes with people's individual rights to express their beliefs, it is wrong.  Rights are more important than values. It relates to the principle of individual rights and freedoms, which is a key principle of liberalism. Values, especially collective values, are not identified as a principle of liberalism.  The source also relates to the collectivist principles of collective interest and collective responsibility.  

The Charter promotes equality. No one should promote their own personal beliefs when they provide a government service.  By doing so, the Charter interferes with individual rights. It tells people of all religions they have to put their beliefs aside when they work for the common good as government employees.  It also implies that women who wear head coverings as part of their religion are oppressed.  They wear the hijab because their culture treats them as less than equal.

I can see both sides on this issue.  On the one hand, I think everyone has the right to practice their own religion.  But what if that religion discriminates against others? Or discriminates against women?  What if it gets in the way of their work?  If I was a Muslim student in a classroom where the teacher wore a big crucifix every day, will I think I am being understood? If my doctor wears a burqa, how can I read her face? This is an interesting dilemma for all Canadians. We are all about multiculturalism, and we think everyone is equal- even if it is equal but different.  When you work for the government, you are supposed to be neutral.  Just the other day, I went to get my drivers licence renewed.  Our registries office is privately run and the people who own it are members of a fundamentalist sect.  The office is full of religious tracts trying to convert people to their way of thinking.  Should their beliefs be in my face when I go to receive a mandatory government service?  Or should people check their religion at the door when they go to work?

Have you ever lost a friend or got into a fight with a family member because of your beliefs?  What about your ideological beliefs?  

A friend of mine recently told a prospective boyfriend, "There's something you should know about me before we take this any further.  I'm pretty sure I'm a liberal and if that's going to cause problems for us down the road, we need to end this thing right now."  Sound crazy?  Maybe not!  


According to a survey done by neuropolitics.org,  most people do consider political beliefs as a criteria in mate selection.  I guess that does make sense as people tend to marry others like themselves. Do you really want to spend your life disagreeing about major issues with your partner?

If you believe in something, you're going to stand up for it.  If you really think you are right about an issue, you might try to convince others that they are wrong.  But where do we draw the line in our human relationships?  Would you move out of the house because you and your mom voted for different candidates?  Would you refuse to serve food to a friend because he was a Conservative and you planned to vote Green?  This podcast from "This American Life" tells the story of how political beliefs can ruin friendships and family life and suggests some strategies to overcome that problem.

Taking the opposite view, when uncle died,  my aunt told me that after his death,  she discovered they had been effectively cancelling one another's vote for the past 50 years.

What do you think?  How much does ideology influence your identity? Would you choose or reject a life partner based on ideological belief?

What is the nature of humanity?  Why is there torture, genocide, and terrorism in our world?  Why do some people delight in tormenting others, as we recently saw in the Amanda Todd case?  And is there such a thing as "evil"?  If there is, where does it come from and how do we stop it as a society?

Evil shows itself in the deliberate act of hurting someone or allowing someone to be hurt.  It is describes as immorality or being wrong.  Sometimes it is just defined as "the absence of good" or the absence of god, however you perceive that to be.  

Cambridge professor Simon Baron-Cohen has explored the neuroscience between evil in his book "The Science of Evil."  Read an interview with the professor as broadcast on National Public Radio in the U.S. or watch the clip below. His studies have shown that evil sometimes comes from an absence of empathy, or the inability to recognize the feelings of others. 

If we accept Edmund Burke's statement that Edmund Burke stated "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," how should we respond to evil?  Incarceration?  Prevention? The death penalty? No matter where you believe evil comes from,  dealing with it comes at the place where the common good intersects with individual rights and freedoms. 

In the news this week we read the story of two teenage girls.  Both bullied and tormented: one girl dead and the other clinging to life.  

Amanda Todd of British Columbia took her own life after a string of events led to her public humiliation at the hands of a sexual predator and subsequent acts by her peers over social media.  Malala Yousufzai, a fourteen year old youth activist in Pakistan was shot in the head by the Taliban for her much publicized attempts to encourage education for girls.  The media has played an important role in both of these cases.

Watch  Malala Yousufzai in the clip below. This is a girl who is passionate about her rights.  A girl whose bravery cannot be ignored.  As the clip below shows, her views were broadcast around the world over the media- and for these views, she was shot.  She has been flown to Great Britain where there is a good prognosis for her recovery.

Malala used the media to promote her views around the world.  Most of us think that is a good thing.  On the other hand, it was the abuse of social media that contributed to Amanda Todd's death.  As a 12 year old girl, she was lured into exposing herself on camera and these images were broadly and anonymously shared to a wide audience, leading to her depression and death.  I think  everyone believes that is a bad thing.  

We like to think that girls experience all the same rights and freedoms as boys, but do they?  How likely is it that a boy would be shot for his views on education?  How likely is it that images of a boy's private parts would be spread over Facebook without it being reported as abuse?  One person exerting power over another is what politics is all about.  Ideologies were invented to curb the abuse of such power.  In our media today, why is more attention paid to one of these girls over the other?   

So the other evening I was randomly googling images of myself, (don’t ask why) and what should I find but the photo of another Nicola Ramsey on the South Carolina Mugshot Database.


The other Nicola Ramsey lives in South Carolina.
The other Nicola was arrested for accepting stolen property.
I am not THAT Nicola Ramsey. 
 

But the site got me thinking.  
What if I was THAT Nicola Ramsey?

That would have been MY face plastered over the internet in an orange jumpsuit, looking like some kind of convict, when in fact I had not been tried or found guilty.

That would have been ME who would have to pay some unknown and unnamed corporation $99 to have my image removed from their site. 

Oh yes, the fine print might say THAT Nicola Ramsey is presumed innocent- but the big print suggests otherwise.

There aren’t any similar websites in Canada, although the Canadian press does publish pictures of people who have been arrested in high profile cases.  Governments in Ontario and Alberta maintain galleries of images of people who have failed to provide child support payments. Is that any different?  For a commentary on the Alberta Maintenance Enforcement site, see this column from the Calgary Sun. 

What about “innocent until proven guilty?” What about a person’s right to privacy? Who owns your image anyway? Is it in the public interest to publish photos of people who have been charged with a crime, if they have not been convicted?  And how does it relate to the role of government in liberal democracies where elected officials and those who vote for them struggle to find a balance between individual rights and the common good?