The Plural States of Recognition

Now available: Michel Seymour, ed., The Plural States of Recognition

Table of contents

Introduction--M.Seymour
Aristotle and Hegel on Recognition and Friendship--R.R.Williams
Hegel, Taylor and the Phenomenology of Broken Spirits--R.Bhargava
Respect as Recognition: Some Political Implications--A.E.Galeotti
Esteem for Contributions to the Common Good: The Role of Personifying Attitudes and Instrumental Value--H.Ikheimo &--A.Laitinen
Models of Democracy and the Politics of Recognition: Respect for Reasonable Cultural Diversity as a Principle of Political Morality--S.Thompson
Difference, Multi and Equality--J.Maclure
Political Liberalism and the Recognition of Peoples--T.Modood
Multicultural Manners--J.T.Levy
The Public Assessment of Indigenous Identity-- Avigail Eisenberg
Conclusion--M.Seymour

Ah, France

Fast-food chain Quick triggers an uproar and is accused of acting "contrary to the principles and spirit of the republic" when it makes the business decision to serve only halal beef at some restaurants. (Mind you, it's not as though this means only serving Muslim customers-- Christians and non-believers can eat halal beef without getting cooties.)

Compare, of course, the Quebec sugar shack case.

Conference: "Le multiculturalisme a-t-il un avenir ?"

Le multiculturalisme a-t-il un avenir ?

26-27 FÉVRIER 2010 : COLLOQUE (UNIVERSITÉ PARIS I - PANTHÉON-SORBONNE)

vendredi 26 février

Salle 1 (Centre Panthéon, 12, place du Panthéon 75005 Paris)

Président de séance : Patrick Savidan (Université de Poitiers)

8h45-9h00 : Catherine Larrère (Université Sorbonne-Paris 1) Mot de bienvenue

9h00-9h40 : Will Kymlicka (Université Queen’s) The Essentialist Critique of Multiculturalism

9h40-10h20 : Cécile Laborde (University College London) Pour un républicanisme critique

10h20-10h50 : Questions

10h50-11h10 : Pause café

11h10-11h50 : Michel Wieviorka (EHESS) Le multiculturalisme : un concept à reconstruire ?

11h50-12h10 : Répondante : Catherine Audard (London School of Economics)

12h10-12h30 : Questions

Après-midi : Deux ateliers en sessions parallèles

Atelier 1 : L’institutionnalisation du multiculturalisme : enjeux juridiques, éthiques et identitaires

Salle 1 (Centre Panthéon, 12, place du Panthéon 75005 Paris)

Président de séance : Vincent Geisser (CNRS)

14h30-14h50 : Serge Guimond (Université Blaise Pascal) Les normes nationales d’intégration au Canada anglais, en France, en Angleterre, en Allemagne et aux USA

14h50-15h10 : Daniel Kofman (Université d’Ottawa) Multiculturalism as a demarcation between rights of majorities and minorities

15h10-15h40 : Questions

15h40-16h00 : Pause café

16h00-16h20 : Pieter Dronkers (Université d’Utrecht) Loyal to the tricolor

16h20-16h40 : Elke Winter (Université d’Ottawa) Nous, les autres et eux : la constitution discursive des identités collectives multiculturelles 16h40-17h00 : Dimitrios Karmis (Université d’Ottawa) Quelle hospitalité pour le multiculturalisme de demain ?

17h00-17h45 : Questions

Atelier 2 : Revisiter le modèle de la tolérance religieuse

Salle 216 (Centre Panthéon, 12, place du Panthéon 75005 Paris)

Président de séance : Christophe Bertossi (IFRI)

14h30-14h50 : François Boucher (Université Queen’s) Le fondement égalitariste des pratiques d’accommodement de la diversité religieuse

14h50-15h10 : Paul May (EHESS et UQAM) La laïcité selon Charles Taylor : une perspective critique

15h10-15h40 : Questions

15h40-16h00 : Pause café

16h00-16h20 : Roberto Merrill (CEHUM, Université de Minho) Minorités illibérales, droits de sortie et neutralité de l’Etat : entre tolérance et autonomie

16h20-16h40 : Laurent de Briey (Université de Namur) Le foulard de la parlementaire. Construction d’une interculturalité ou régression démocratique ?

16h40-17h00 : Denise Helly (INRS, Université de Montréal) Les juges de droit familial et les causes « musulmanes » au Québec et en Ontario

17h00-17h45 : Questions

20h30 : Dîner

Samedi 27 février

Matinée : Deux ateliers en sessions parallèles

Atelier 3 : Le modèle multiculturaliste : réappropriations et résistances

Salle 419B (Centre Panthéon, 12, place du Panthéon 75005 Paris)

Président de séance : Pap Ndiaye (EHESS)

9h00-9h20 : Patrick Imbert (Université d’Ottawa) Une lecture de Charles Taylor, Will Kymlicka et du multiculturalisme canadien par Daniel Bonilla Maldonado en fonction de la Colombie et de La constitucíon multicultural

9h20-9h40 : Magali Bessone (Université de Rennes 1) Multiculturalisme et construction nationale : le cas de la Bosnie-Herzégovine

9h40-10h10 : Questions

10h10-10h30 : Pause café

10h30-10h50 : Jessica Franklin et Karen Bird (Université de McMaster) From colour-blindness to recognition : Political paths to new identity practices in Brazil and France

10h50-11h10 : Milena Doytcheva (Université de Lille 3) Lutte contre les discriminations et “promotion de la diversité” : la difficile émergence d’une question minoritaire en France

11h10-11h30 : Sophie Guérard de Latour (Université de Bordeaux 3) La France perd-elle la mémoire ? Républicanisme, histoire nationale et reconnaissance des minorités

11h30-12h15 : Questions

Atelier 4 : Jeunesse et éducation dans les sociétés multiculturelles

Salle 420B (Centre Panthéon, 12, place du Panthéon 75005 Paris)

Présidente de séance : Gabrielle Radica (Université de Picardie)

9h00-9h20 : Tine Brouckaert et Karima Guezzou (Universités de Ghent et de Saint-Etienne) Comment négocier que les enfants de sans papiers, deviennent de futurs citoyens acceptés tout en laissant une place à leurs droits à la différence ?Entre valeurs et construction d’identités à l’école, une comparaison des modèles entre la France et la Belgique.

9h20-9h40 : Laury Bacro (Universités de Montréal et de Poitiers) Quid du multiculturalisme en France ? Le cas des troisièmes générations en France et leur difficulté à formuler leurs demandes de reconnaissance dans le cadre de l’idéologie républicaine

9h40-10h10 : Questions

10h10-10h30 : Pause café

10h30-10h50 : Janie Pélabay (Université du Luxembourg) L’Europe des « valeurs communes » et le recul du multiculturalisme : la diversité supplantée par l’unité ? 10h50-11h10 : Marcello Ostinelli (SUPSI, Locarno) L’éducation à la citoyenneté démocratique entre libéralisme politique et républicanisme critique

11h10-11h30 : Gunther Dietz (Universidad Veracruzana) Multiculturalism and Interculturality in Mexican Public Policy : the discourse and praxis of indigenous rights in a intercultural university

11h30-12h15 : Questions

Après-midi : séance plénière

Amphithéâtre Bachelard (17 rue de la Sorbonne 75005 Paris)

Président de séance : Emmanuel Picavet (Université de Franche-Comté)

14h30-15h10 : Catherine Larrère (Université Sorbonne-Paris 1) Multiculturalisme et protection de la nature

15h10-15h50 : Daniel Weinstock (CREUM, Université de Montréal) Est-ce que le multiculturalisme canadien est en crise ? 15h50-16h20 : Questions

16h20-16h40 : Pause café

16h40-17h20 : João Cardoso Rosas (Université de Minho) From Human Rights to Multiculturalism and Back

17h20-17h40 : Répondante : Justine Lacroix (Université Libre de Bruxelles)

17h40-18h00 : Questions

Reading recommendation: Ethics and International Affairs symposium on Walzer

The fall 2009issue features

The Moral Standing of States Revisited (p 325-347)
Charles R. Beitz

A Few Words on Mill, Walzer, and Nonintervention (p 349-369)
Michael W. Doyle

Categorizing Groups, Categorizing States: Theorizing Minority Rights in a World of Deep Diversity (p 371-388)
Will Kymlicka

Le fédéralisme multinational en perspective : un modèle viable ?

Colloque organisé par Michel Seymour à l’Université du Québec à Montréal

25-26-27 septembre 2009, salle D-R200 de l’UQAM (Pavillon Athanase-David, 1430 Saint-Denis)

Qu’est-ce que le fédéralisme multinational ? Quels sont les enjeux soulevés par la présence de plusieurs peuples au sein d’un État fédéral ? Est-ce que le fédéralisme apparaît tout indiqué pour gérer la diversité nationale ? Ces questions se posent au Canada depuis toujours, mais elles se posent aussi dans plusieurs autres sociétés. Des États fédéraux multinationaux tels que l’URSS, la Yougoslavie et la Tchécoslovaquie n’existent plus. La Belgique vacille face au défi d’accommoder la diversité nationale en son sein. Aussi, même si d’autres États multinationaux fédéraux ou quasi-fédéraux tels que l’Inde, l’Espagne et le Canada existent encore, la question de la viabilité de l’État fédéral multinational doit être soulevée.

Des questions plus spécifiques peuvent aussi être posées qui mettent en relation les expériences de sociétés particulières avec la problématique générale du fédéralisme multinational. Quelles sont les promesses du fédéralisme multinational canadien ? Que penser de la reconnaissance du Québec comme nation, de la résolution possible du déséquilibre fiscal, de la limitation du « pouvoir fédéral de dépenser », du rôle international que joue ou que pourrait jouer le Québec et du fédéralisme asymétrique ? S’agit-il d’éléments qui composent le fédéralisme multinational ?


More information is here.

On nationalism and federalism

Via Matt Yglesias, I see that Lawrence Martin is in the Globe and Mail making the following interesting point.

Since its debut election campaign in 1993, the Bloc has never been beaten by a federalist party. Not in six elections. The demise of the Bloquistes is often predicted. It never happens. They are entrenched. In the next campaign, they are on course to rout the Liberals and Conservatives in Quebec again. [...]

The coddling of the BQ sees Canadian taxpayers subsidize the separatist party to the tune of millions of dollars to run its election campaigns. In that they have to campaign in only one province, the system absurdly favours it over federalist parties. The Bloc is allowed to participate in the English-language debates while running no candidates outside Quebec. Again, nothing is done. We wouldn't want to risk offending their delicate sensibilities.

But, for all its inroads, the Bloc has no reason to celebrate.

There's a great paradox at work here, a rollout of unintended consequences. The Bloc successes have bred failure. The better the BQ does, the further it gets from its goal of sovereignty. The separatists were closest to realizing that ambition in the early-to-mid-nineties, shortly after the Bloc arrived on the scene. Since that time, support for the sovereignty option, despite all the Bloc victories, has consistently been in decline.

The Bloc, it can be mischievously argued, has served the cause of a united Canada. Rarely over the past half-century has Canadian unity been as solid as it is today. It may well be that the Bloc, with its imposing fed-baiting presence in Ottawa, suffices for many Quebeckers as their instrument of sovereignty. It gives vent to pride, to autonomist passions. It wins concessions for the franchise.

If we were to take away the Bloc, if only Canada-minded federalist parties represented Quebeckers in Ottawa, a different scenario is easily imaginable. Conditions could well exist for a more spirited and fractious separatist movement.

Benefiting from the shrewd leadership of Gilles Duceppe and a smart, disciplined caucus, the Bloc has been able to address many of Quebec's grievances. But its steady progress now sees it scraping the barrel in search of meaningful injustices to fortify its underlying pathology (witness its current election advertising planning).

The idea that secessionist politics could be a stabilizing force in a multinational federation figures prominently in Wayne Norman's Negotiating Nationalism (see especially ch. 6) as well as in my own "Federalism, Liberalism, and the Separation of Loyalties," which adds to Norman's arguments an account of how the federal structure of the rest of constitution affects the outcomes of secessionist politics in one culturally distinct province. Three years after his book and two years after my article, I still think we're right, but it's a claim that makes Canadian audiences look at me funny. Interesting to see it start to go mainstream.

Quote of the day

From the Gazette, in an article about the elimination of English translations from the hard copies of community newspapers distributed for free in some parts of greater Montreal, due to shrinking ad revenue, and the resulting complaints and petitions:

"If we don't start sticking up for our rights we've lost them" [LaSalle borough councillor Michael] Vadacchino said. [...] "I understand the economics of it, of course, it's a business, but as a citizen, that's not my problem, they've given this service for years, so now what?"

Visions of Canadian identity: 10 equal provinces, 33 million equal citizens, or multiple nations

Interesting poll here.

Obviously false dichotomies

One sees this kind of thing from time to time, and it baffles me.

“The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue; it is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “The burqa is not a religious sign; it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women.”

Why would one possibly think that either of those sentences contains two mutually-exclusive categories? What generates the idea that something cannot be both a religious symbol and a symbol of women's subjugation? Is it polyanna-ism about religion?

I'm not commenting here on the merits of Sarkozy's insistence that "the burqa is not welcome in France" (though I'll probably do so at some point). But the attempt here, I guess, to deny that there are any costs or trade-offs in banning it (if it's not a "religious issue," then there's no constitutional value to balance against the constitutional value of sex equality-- that kind of thing) seems to me pointlessly dishonest.

Update

There's sophistry aplenty in the following section, expanding on why a prohbition on the burka would be costless in terms of liberty:

Où en sommes-nous avec la liberté ? Qu'en avons-nous fait ?

La liberté, ce n'est pas le droit pour chacun de faire ce qu'il veut. Être libre, ce n'est pas vivre sans contrainte et sans règle. Quand il n'y a pas de règles, quand tous les coups sont permis, ce n'est pas la liberté qui triomphe, c'est la loi de la jungle, la loi du plus fort ou celle du plus malin.

C'est le débat que nous avons sur l'école : rendre service à nos enfants, c'est leur enseigner qu'il n'y a pas de liberté sans règle.

C'est le débat que nous avons sur l'économie, sur la finance, sur le capitalisme. Nous voyons bien que le capitalisme devient fou quand il n'y a plus de règles.

C'est le débat aussi que nous avons sur le droit d'auteur. Car enfin, comment pourrait-il y avoir dans notre société de zones de non-droit ? Comment peut-on réclamer en même temps que l'économie soit régulée et qu'Internet ne le soit pas ? Comment peut-on accepter que les règles qui s'imposent à toute la société ne s'imposent pas sur Internet ? En défendant le droit d'auteur, je ne défends pas seulement la création artistique, je défends aussi l'idée que je me fais d'une société de liberté, où la liberté de chacun est fondée sur le respect du droit des autres. C'est aussi l'avenir de notre culture que je défends. C'est l'avenir de la création. Voilà pourquoi j'irai jusqu'au bout. (Applaudissements.)

Le débat sur la liberté, c'est aussi le débat sur la sécurité et sur les prisons. Quelle est la liberté de celui qui a peur de sortir de chez lui ? Quelle est la liberté pour les victimes si leurs agresseurs ne sont pas punis ? Comment peut-on parler de justice quand 82 000 peines ne sont pas exécutées parce qu'il n'y a pas assez de places dans les prisons ?

So: imprisoning women who go out of the house fully covered prevents the law of the jungle; prisons are liberty; restrictions on capitalism are liberty; copyright restrictions are liberty. No rules can possibly restrict liberty, because liberty is not the absence of rules.

I suppose I should view it as ideologically useful to have the French economic model linked so closely to the French model of laicite, both in opposition to Anglo-Saxon liberalism. But it just makes me cranky.

Good for Obama

From the Cairo address:

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
[...]

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

It's an extraordinary speech overall, hitting lots of very important themes and ideas. I started off a little annoyed, because the only terrorist attack mentioned is 9/11 and the reaction to it is made to seem like a purely American one. I understand that it's vital to avoid describing a civilizational war, and that this generates an impulse to compartmentalize 9/11. Making 9/11 a localized security threat against the United States, and the response to it a localized war in Afghanistan, is a way of forestalling Bush-era maximalism.

But it also makes the security account seem parochial: the U.S. responded to Al Qaeda's attacks on New York and Washington, and that's the extent of the American interest. I don't want to see the deaths in Madrid, London, Bali, Casablanca, Jakarta, Riyadh, and Istanbul disappear from our historical memory of 9/11 and its aftermath. And invoking them doesn't have to mean describing a global civilizational struggle-- indeed it allows one to emphasize that much of Al Qaeda's violence is committed against targets within Muslim countries. Through Obama's address, 9/11 is mentioned several times, and other attacks are only alluded to.

But that's my only substantial objection to a very important, and very effective, speech. And I was of course especially glad to see the passages with which I began, and don't at all mind the implied swipe at France and Turkey. The American doctrine of religious freedom does have a distinct position from the Jacobin doctrine of laicite, and it's worthwhile to stress the implication for Muslim liberty in America.

Pronunciation

L'affaire Sotomayor has clearly given me fodder for the next round of revisions on Multicultural Manners. It's just the right kind of case; there's lots of local variation in what's reasonable (anglophones in China and Chinese in English-speaking countries-- maybe it's true of westerners/ Europeans in general, I just don't know-- routinely adopt new locally-appropriate names rather than either put up with hearing their name mangled all the time or trying to force locals to wrap their mouths around unfamiliar sounds, but I don't think this is widespread in other cases); neither an ironclad rule of "always pronounce the name the way it was pronounced in its original language" or "always localize pronunciation" seems even plausible, much less reasonable; there will be questions of local respect in deciding which languages are so homegrown that keeping the original pronunciation is tied up with questions of political equality (Puerto Rico is part of the United States, and it's more problematic to exotify Spanish in that "we can't be expected to talk furriner talk!" way than it would be with, say, Russian); and the question exists in that same interpersonal space between rights-bearers, especially acute in crowded multiethnic cities, that is the focus of the paper. Isolated Amish folks don't often run into the problem of how outsiders pronounce their names, and probably don't care much.

Language cases get short shrift in the paper as it is, even though I knew they were relevant, as I got interested in the idea that seeing-and-being-seen united a whole bunch of cases of interest. But hearing-and-being-heard is structurally similar.

Also related: the inconsistent mess of customs about how to pronounce place-names (cf the by-now-famous Obama shift from an Anglicized "Afghanistan" to a less-Anglicized "Pakistan" within the same set of remarks), and whether to translate words within place names. There's no possibility of consistency here; only a pretentious nitwit walks around saying "Paree" in English for "Paris," but only a clod would say "San Joo-an" or "Saint John" for "San Juan." So we're inevitably in the muddled middle. Someone who says "Me-hico" in English sounds ridiculous to me. But I understand that there's a generation of English speakers to whom my "Bay-jing" instead of Peking sounds just as absurd. And I say Bay-jing with very English sounds; it's no close approximation of how the word sounds in Mandarin.

But being stuck in the muddled middle is not the same as denying that their are locally-right and locally-wrong answers, things that are polite and things that are otherwise.

Now available: Toward a Humanist Justice

Toward a Humanist Justice: The Political Philosophy of Susan Moller Okin, edited by Debra Satz and Rob Reich.

The late Susan Moller Okin was a leading political theorist whose scholarship integrated political philosophy and issues of gender, the family, and culture. Okin argued that liberalism, properly understood as a theory opposed to social hierarchies and supportive of individual freedom and equality, provided the tools for criticizing the substantial and systematic inequalities between men and women. Her thought was deeply informed by a feminist view that theories of justice must apply equally to women as men, and she was deeply engaged in showing how many past and present political theories failed to do this. She sought to rehabilitate political theories--particularly that of liberal egalitarianism, in such a way as to accommodate the equality of the sexes, and with an eye toward improving the condition of women and families in a world of massive gender inequalities. In her lifetime Okin was widely respected as a scholar whose engagement went well beyond the world of theory, and her premature death in 2004 was considered by many a major blow to progressive political thought and women's interests around the world.

This volume stems from a conference on Okin, and contains articles by some of the top feminist and political philosophers working today. They are organized around a set of themes central to Okin's work, namely liberal theory, gender and the family, feminist and cultural differences, and global justice. Included are major figures such as Joshua Cohen, David Miller, Cass Sunstein, Alison Jaggar, and Iris Marion Young, among others. Their aim is not to celebrate Okin's work, but to constructively engage with it and further its goals.

Table of Contents
Introduction: Toward a Humanist Justice , Debra Satz, (Stanford University) and Rob Reich, (Stanford University)

PART 1: Rethinking Political Theory

1. Okin's Liberal Feminism as a Radical Political Theory , Nancy Rosenblum, (Harvard University)
2. Justice and Gender: Reflections on Susan Moller Okin , Joshua Cohen, (Stanford University)
3. Okin's Contributions to the Study Of Gender in Political Theory , Elizabeth Wingrove, (University of Michigan)
4. Can Feminism be Liberated from Governmentalism? , John Tomasi, (Brown University)

PART II: Gender and the Family

5. Equality of Opportunity and the Family , David Miller, (Oxford University)
6. "No More Relevance than One's Eye Color": Justice and Okin's Genderless Society , Molly Lynn Shanley, (Vassar College)
7. On the Tension Between Sex Equality and Religious Freedom , Cass Sunstein, (University of Chicago)

PART III: Feminism and Cultural Diversity

8. From Liberal to Post-Colonial to Multicultural Feminism: Competing Approaches to the study of Gender, Citizenship and Fate of Religious Arbitration , Ayelet Shachar, (University of Toronto)
9. Okin and the Challenge of Essentialism , Alison Jaggar, (University of Colorado at Boulder)
10. The Dilemma of a Dutiful Daughter: Love and Freedom in the Thought of Kartini , Chandran Kukathas, (London School of Economics)

PART IV: Development and Gender

11. Reinventing Globalization to Reduce Gender Inequality , Robert Keohane, (Princeton University)
12. The Gendered Cycle of Vulnerability in the Less Developed World , Iris Marion Young, (University of Chicago)

That last chapter will be one of the final pieces by Iris Young to see print.

Kymlicka interviewed about Canadian multiculturalism...

in the Globe and Mail. Includes some discussion of the Tamil community's distinctive political profile, as well as discussions about the Canadian high-skill immigration model.

Multicultural Manners

I've posted a new paper on SSRN: Multicultural Manners. It's my first real paper about Montreal. It's also a bit earlier of a draft than I usually post, so comments would be especially welcome.

Audio of conference on Bouchard-Taylor report

The GRIPP conference on the Bouchard-Taylor report blogged about here can now be listened to online here.

TOMORROW: GRIPP year-end conference: "The Bouchard-Taylor report, one year later: international perspectives/ Le rapport Taylor-Bouchard, un an plus tard: perspectives internationales

* This conference will provide an opportunity to critically reflect on the Commissioners' report, their analysis and recommendations, as well as the broader lessons we might draw from the process. Drawing on their diverse national experiences of multiculturalism, the invited speakers will extend the Québec debate on "reasonable accommodation."

* May 1st and 2nd, 2009
* Université de Montréal (Salle 1035, Pavillon J-Armand Bombardier)

Participants include:

* Tariq Modood, Bristol University
* Jeff Spinner-Halev, University of North Carolina
* Avigail Eisenberg, University of Victoria
* Monique Deveaux, Williams College
* Will Kymlicka, Queen's University
* Éléonore Lepinard, Université de Montréal
* Manuel Toscano Méndez, Universidad de Malaga and CRÉUM
* Jacob Levy, McGill University
* Dominique Leydet, Université du Québec à Montréal

Tentative Program:

Friday MAY 1

8.45-9 Registration, Coffee

9-9.30 Welcome
Daniel Weinstock

9.30-12 Perspectives from English Canada
Avigail Eisenberg
Will Kymlicka
Commentator: Dominique Leydet

12-1.30 Lunch (catered)

1.30-5 Perspectives from Europe
Tariq Modood
Éléonore Lepinard
Jean Bauberot
Commentator: Jacob Levy


Saturday MAY 2

8.45-9 Coffee

9-11 Perspectives from the U.S.
Monique Deveaux
Jeff Spinner-Helev
Commentator: Manuel Toscano Méndez

11-11.30 Break

11.30-12.30 Synthesis
Anna Carastathis


* Please note: Although most presentations will be made in English, we encourage passive bilingualism, and individuals may request simultaneous translation as needed.



Please RSVP!

* Admission is free and open to all, but advance registration is required. Please register by Monday, April 20 at the latest by e-mailing Will at [email protected].


* For more information, please contact Anna by e-mail at [email protected] or by telephone at 514-343-6111 extension 2932.


* Note: To access the Bouchard-Taylor report, which can be downloaded in French or in English, visit http://www.accommodements.qc.ca/index-en.html


* Organized by Daniel Weinstock and Anna Carastathis, with assistance from Will Colish and Martin Blanchard, Centre de recherche en éthique de l'Université de Montréal.

GRIPP year-end conference: "The Bouchard-Taylor report, one year later: international perspectives/ Le rapport Taylor-Bouchard, un an plus tard: perspectives internationales

* This conference will provide an opportunity to critically reflect on the Commissioners' report, their analysis and recommendations, as well as the broader lessons we might draw from the process. Drawing on their diverse national experiences of multiculturalism, the invited speakers will extend the Québec debate on "reasonable accommodation."



* May 1st and 2nd, 2009
* Université de Montréal (Salle 1035, Pavillon J-Armand Bombardier)


Participants include:

* Tariq Modood, Bristol University
* Jeff Spinner-Halev, University of North Carolina
* Avigail Eisenberg, University of Victoria
* Monique Deveaux, Williams College
* Will Kymlicka, Queen's University
* Éléonore Lepinard, Université de Montréal
* Manuel Toscano Méndez, Universidad de Malaga and CRÉUM
* Jacob Levy, McGill University
* Dominique Leydet, Université du Québec à Montréal


Tentative Program:

Friday MAY 1

8.45-9 Registration, Coffee

9-9.30 Welcome
Daniel Weinstock

9.30-12 Perspectives from English Canada
Avigail Eisenberg
Will Kymlicka
Commentator: Dominique Leydet

12-1.30 Lunch (catered)

1.30-5 Perspectives from Europe
Tariq Modood
Éléonore Lepinard
Jean Bauberot
Commentator: Jacob Levy


Saturday MAY 2

8.45-9 Coffee

9-11 Perspectives from the U.S.
Monique Deveaux
Jeff Spinner-Helev
Commentator: Manuel Toscano Méndez

11-11.30 Break

11.30-12.30 Synthesis
Anna Carastathis


* Please note: Although most presentations will be made in English, we encourage passive bilingualism, and individuals may request simultaneous translation as needed.



Please RSVP!

* Admission is free and open to all, but advance registration is required. Please register by Monday, April 20 at the latest by e-mailing Will at [email protected].


* For more information, please contact Anna by e-mail at [email protected] or by telephone at 514-343-6111 extension 2932.


* Note: To access the Bouchard-Taylor report, which can be downloaded in French or in English, visit http://www.accommodements.qc.ca/index-en.html


* Organized by Daniel Weinstock and Anna Carastathis, with assistance from Will Colish and Martin Blanchard, Centre de recherche en éthique de l'Université de Montréal.

Joan Scott, "Secularism and Women's Equality"

Today at McGill: Joan Scott, "Secularism and Women's Equality," Leacock 232, 4 pm.

Joan Scott will look at the current popular assumption that there is a relationship between secularism and gender equality. According to Prof. Scott this secular versus religion argument has been revived as a way of talking about the unacceptability of Muslims, especially in Western European states where they constitute large immigrant populations. Prof. Scott will argue that historically there is no relationship between processes of secularization (separation of church and state) and rights/equality for women; indeed, that the public/private separation (politics/religion) parallels the political/domestic split that consigns women to childbearing and child rearing; the problem of how to address sexual difference plagues secularists still. If there has been a growing flexibility in the realm of sex and sexuality in some areas of the West, it's questionable whether it is a product of secularism.

I believe that this is an inaugural event of the new McGill Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies, which succeeds the McGill Centre for Research and Teaching on Women.

In the news

I'm quoted in today's Journal de Montreal as one of several experts approving of the Montreal YMCA's decision to allow a Muslim lifeguard to wear a "burkini," a swimsuit that leaves only her face, hands, and feet exposed.

Interestingly and importantly, the woman is a native-born Quebecoise who converted to Islam, not an immigrant or from an immigrant family. It's worthwhile to emphasize that "reasonable accommodations" help protect the religious liberty of everyone in a jurisdiction, not only immigrants. Because of the possibility of conversion, there's no neat way to divide up religious freedom between Them and Us.

Promoting equality of the sexes...

by excluding women from citizenship. Notice that her husband, who presumably shares her religious views, is already a citizen.