O Christmas Tree...Where art thou?

"White Man's Guilt" or religious intolerance?

This is the scenario: Madam Justice Marion Cohen bans the display of a Christmas tree at the entrance of her courthouse and relegates it to a side hall. As senior judge of this particular courthouse in Toronto, she has the authority to do so.

Her reason? It was given to the staff via an e-mail that went like this, "However beautiful Christams trees may be - and I do find them beautiful - a Christmas tree is a traditional Chrisitian symbol. The message to many who attend our court and are confronted with this symbol is that they are not part of this institution. I do not think it is appropriate that the first thing people see when they enter is a Christian symbol."

Of course the media was plastered with this incident. A week later it still gets written about in the newspaper. What was the fallout? Jewish groups were interviewed - they had no problems with the tree being displayed at the front entrance. Muslim groups were interviewed - they had no problems with the tree at the front. The Premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty apparently discussed the issue with the Madam Justice to no avail. Not one politician or religious group came to her defence, that I saw. Then why did she do it?

Is this a case of "White Man's Guilt?" That a White person feels guilty of past oppressions, or is trying too hard to be politically correct in order not to offend anyone. There is another possibility that I have yet to hear anyone broach, because they're probably too afraid to, lest they be labelled racist. And reading this, that may be your first reaction. But let may say it, read the rest of this posting, then judge me. You can even go as far as to submit your comments. So here it is... Her name is Madame Justice Marion Cohen. I'm not certain if she is, nobody's mentioned it, but the name appears Jewish to me. Is this a case of her be offended by this Christian symbol and using her position to get her way? Only she knows the true answer to this.

In a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood of Toronto, there is a giant Menorah. During Hanukkah, it is lit. It's in a very public place. What do you think the reaction would have been had somebody had the cajones to ban this important Jewish symbol from the public space, or relegate it to some hidden area?

No. Religious symbols such as a Christmas tree or Menorah should not be banned from public spaces. Canada is made up of a diverse population with many religious beliefs. The Canadian Constitution even guarantees the right to practice your religion without fear of persecution. Isn't the banning of a Christmas tree from the front entrance of a courthouse religious persecution? This is the act of a single person, not a government mandated policy.

I work for a company that has many non-Christians working for it. I do not harbour any ill will if some of them leave early because they must pray at sunset, or they take Jewish holidays off, or they take a few extra days during Christmas, even Orthodox Christmas, to be with their families. It's part of the diversity that makes up this country.

The ill will I do harbour is towards those that are intolerant towards those of other beliefs, and they get away with it under the guise of "equality" for all. Banning a Christmas tree is not equality.

Madam Justice, why don't you come out and tell us the real reason you banned the Christmas tree. If you did it because of what I suggested, then say so and apologize for it. You stand alone because nobody has come to your defense.

To those that may try something similar in the future, using the Madam Justice's incident to justify your actions, this will just lead to an escalation of religious intolerance. We have enough intolerance in this world, we don't need to start a war with this incident as the genesis.

Merry Christmas
Happy Hannukah
Happy Kwanzaa
Happy Holidays

Wings Over The World

P.S. Take note that I did not include a Muslim symbol because I'm not familiar with as public a symbol as those I mention for Christians and Jews. I do not mean any offence. I would have included one had I been aware of one when I wrote this. I just wanted to head off any comments.

Not playing with a full deck

I heard it reported that there is speculation Prime Minister Stephen Harper is going to shuffle his cabinet in the New Year.

Hmmm....Less than a year and he wants to move people around. Maybe it's been tough to muzzle the cabinet ministers he currently has and he wants some real wallflowers surrounding him. Or maybe Ms. Rona Ambrose is getting too much flak over the Conservative policy on the environment that he wants somebody with tougher skin holding the Environment Minister's post.

My suggestion. How about Mr. Harper shuffle his position to Mr. McKay. I stated previously that Peter seems to have (mostly) gotten over his break up with Belinda. Of course there's the occasional comment in the House that has a bit of bitterness in its tone. But I'm sure that would disappear once he takes over the top job. (Maybe they broke up because a compounding of their names doesn't sound as good as Brangelina or Bennifer -- Pelinda? Beleter?)

Yup, maybe a little cabinet shuffle will do the government good. If only we could get rid of some of the jokers in the deck.

Wings Over The World

Stephane Dion. Liberal leader or "modern man?"

I've written about dual citizenship before. This issue came up last summer with the whole evacuation-of-dual-citizenship-Canadians-from-Lebanon-during-the-strife-that-went-on-with-Israel thing. My conclusion was that as long as the Canadian government has a policy to support dual citizenship, that they need to support their policy, not just when they think it's convenient. The important thing was there not be two class of citizens, within that policy, unless specifically stated otherwise (I added this last bit for the purpose of this entry).

The exceptions to dual citizenship should be made clear to the people who immigrate to Canada, or Canadians seeking other citizenships, as well as what the consequences of their actions would be.

One policy that should be implemented, and has been making the news of late, is that some politicians and political appointments currently hold dual citizenship. The most recent case to make the news? The newly minted federal Liberal leader, Stephane Dion. He also holds French citizenship, through his mother.

Mr. Dion's defence? He doesn't think it's an issue. He "is 100 percent to Canada first." Well, if that's the case, then he should give up his French citizenship. Even if there is no conflict of interest, he should take the high ground because there is a perception of a conflict of interest. Ask any lawyer and they'll tell you the same thing.

If you decide to go into Canadian politics, or the politics of any country for that matter, you must renounce citizenships of any other country that you may hold. Canada's Governor General Michaelle Jean renounced her French citizenship when she felt the pressure. And why not? As Canada's appointed head of state and commander-in-chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, there should be no question of her loyalty to Canada and its citizens.

So why is it that Mr. Dion is choosing not to renounce his French citizenship? I can't even venture a guess.

In fact, it has been reported that approximately 40 of the over 300 MPs in Ottawa have dual citizenship, represented by three of the major parties (Conservatives, Liberals and NDPers). None of the other parties have the right to criticize Mr. Dion (let he who is without sin, cast the first stone comes to mind), but that doesn't make it right. In fact, NDP leader Jack Layton stated that Mr. Dion should renounce his French citizenship, although he qualified it by saying that the leader of any party should do so. Why did he qualify his stance? His wife Olivia Chow, who is a part of his NDP caucus, holds dual citizenship. You can bet Mr. Layton would have gotten an ear full over dinner that night if he pressed harder.

When you hold public office, then you must renounce any significant allegiance outside of Canada, especially citizenship. More so for Federal politicians than lower levels of government, because by their very nature, they are dealing with foreign governments. If Mr. Dion becomes Prime Minister and an issue regarding France comes up, will he excuse himself from the debate, as well as the vote? Not acceptable! If in the future you return to private life, then I see no issue with regaining renounced citizenships. I'm sure most countries would allow this.

Politicians, because they are public figures and our representatives in government, are held to a higher standard. They are a reflection of their constituents and their country, in the eyes of the rest of the world. To Stephane Dion (Liberal), Vic Toews (Conservative), Tony Clement (Conservative), Olivia Chow (NDP), and all the rest in Ottawa who hold foreign citizenships I say this, renounce any citizenships and significant allegiances outside of Canada, or step down. Simple as that.

Don't believe that this is good idea? Just ask separatist Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe. He doesn't see a problem with Mr. Dion holding dual French citizenship. Do I need to say more?

Wings Over The World

(photo courtesy of www.ctv.ca)