Audacity of equality
-
The concept of accommodation is inherently synonymous with an inconvenience wherein one party has to make an effort to adjust the other i.e., make place for someone at a personal expense. The process of accommodation naturally creates hierarchies. The one who accommodates dictates the terms of accommodation. And, whenever an accommodation is made, there is an expectation of gratitude from the person being accommodated towards the accommodator.
This sounds a lot like a patron-client relationship. For all the talk of equality, Canadians are happy to develop this sort of relationship among them. This dynamic of hierarchies becomes even more frustrating for the second-generation Canadians. For all intents and purposes, they are as Canadian as anyone else. So, they have the audacity of equality. They are unwilling to negotiate with their fellow citizens the extent to which they are allowed to exercise something as intimate as their ethno-religious identity.
Here, I am not talking about the adequacy of a turban as a helmet or the dangers of porting a kirpan in a high school. Rather it is the concept of being obligated to negotiate one’s perceived rights. It appears be the height of humiliation and mendicancy to have to ask your supposed equals to grant you the rights that they themselves enjoy without any restriction.
Also, why does reasonable accommodation feels more like preferential treatment for certain groups? For all the talk of laïcité, Québec sure invests a lot of money in upkeeping the “cultural heritage” that it pretends to detest. I am talking about the churches. Québec seems hell bent on preserving these spaces. Also, the churches have the coveted right to toll their bells. When a (very) Québécois friend of mine tried to defend this right and privilege in the name of cultural heritage, he was unable to answer a few simple questions. First, what if Muslims started to give the call to prayer (Adhaan) five times a day with loud speakers? Could this idea of conservation of cultural heritage apply here? Also, is an institution that has perpetrated horrendous acts against indigenous peoples worth preserving? What if, to an indigenous person, the bell that tolls acts as a daily reminder of the crimes committed against their communities? Is that what Québec considers to be something worth preserving?