The National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion Wednesday to defend Christmas.
This followed from the question whether Christmas is racist which has been giving some politicians grist for trolling. The Bloc’s Yves‑François Blanchet challenged Justin Trudeau on Wednesday in Parliament to respond to the question, Trudeau’s response being “I’m very pleased to stand up and try to answer a totally ridiculous question.”
The Canadian Human Rights Commission had pointed out in a recent paper that Christmas and Easter are the only two statutory religious holidays in Canada, meaning that adherents of other faiths are often unable to celebrate their holy days and feasts. Trudeau hedged on this, saying that “all holidays and festivals that take place this time of year” should be recognized. I wonder which ones he had in mind.
Meezly 14:32 on 2023-11-30 Permalink
So heartening to see the nat’l assembly act so swiftly and unanimously to adopt a pro-Christmas motion.
If only they can move even half that fast to resolve the ongoing negotiations with our public sector unions!
Ian 14:33 on 2023-11-30 Permalink
I demand a Festivus for the rest of us!
bob 14:46 on 2023-11-30 Permalink
Abject stupidity. The CHRC is increasingly incoherent as it wallows in faux-progressive jargon, and the National Assembly is not voting *for* anything, it is voting *against* “money and the ethnic vote”.
jeather 14:55 on 2023-11-30 Permalink
I can see the argument for Christmas as a stat holiday, though it is a religious holiday, even if some people celebrate it secularly. But Easter?
In any case, the question was never “is Christmas racist?” (no), it was “is having Christmas and Easter as stat holidays giving Christians rights that people of other religions don’t have?” and anyone saying the answer to that is also no is lying.
dhomas 15:04 on 2023-11-30 Permalink
Everyone else in the province: “hey, I wonder when my kids will be able to have an education with teachers that are paid and treated properly?”
Politicians: “I wonder what fake controversy we can create to distract people from the important matters we should be discussing instead?”.
Blork 15:41 on 2023-11-30 Permalink
I agree that Easter is an odd one, as it’s so very obviously Christian. But Christmas (despite the name) has evolved to become largely a secular holiday.
I’ve argued this before and I’ll do it again. The big attraction of Christmas as a holiday is that it comes at the end of the year, and is only a week apart from the actual year-end holiday. That doesn’t mean much to some people, but many people do measure their lives by various time-based touchstones, and one of them is the end of the calendar year.
The fact that Christmas and New Years (a totally secular holiday) are only a week apart means a lot of people take that week off work. In fact, many offices close for that week. This isn’t a religious thing, it’s a “marking the end of another year” thing.
We’re heading into the longest slog of winter (only an issue in northern places), the financial year is over, the calendar year is over. It’s a good time to take a break, spend time with friends and/or family, think about the year gone by and the new year coming up, etc. etc.
This isn’t religious. And it applies to everyone who is using the Gregorian calendar for everyday practical purposes, so therefore everyone. The fact that this pair of week-apart holidays has been around for as long as we can remember — and combined with the relatively recent tradition of some offices closing that week — and the fact that it applies to everyone, means it has evolved to be a secular tradition not a religious one.
And for what it’s worth, there’s nothing stopping people of other religions from using the last week of the year to get together with their friends and family too, the same way they do on Canada or Labour Day. It’s just a holiday! The fact that some people go to church that day doesn’t mean it’s only for the church-goers.
There, I said it. Again. If people would just stop seeing Christmas as an exclusively Christian holiday we would not have any of these time and energy wasting arguments.
H. John 15:45 on 2023-11-30 Permalink
The CHRC published a “discussion paper” in October.
It stated:
“The purpose of this discussion paper is to explore the concept of religious intolerance, its history in
Canada, and the mechanisms that perpetuate it.”
And in one paragraph, in an 11 page page document, it states:
“Discrimination against religious minorities in Canada is grounded in Canada’s history of colonialism. This
history manifests itself in present-day systemic religious discrimination. An obvious example is statutory
holidays in Canada. Statutory holidays related to Christianity, including Christmas and Easter, are the
only Canadian statutory holidays linked to religious holy days. As a result, non-Christians may need to
request special accommodations to observe their holy days and other times of the year where their
religion requires them to abstain from work.4”
The footnote refers to a “policy” of the Ontario Human Rights Commission which was published in 2015, and in place for the last eight years . The Ontario policy states:
“Faithism can also take on less obvious and more systemic forms which can be “hidden” to the people who don’t experience it. Systemic faithism refers to the ways cultural and societal norms, structures and institutions may directly or indirectly, consciously or unwittingly, promote, sustain or entrench differential advantage or disadvantage for individuals and groups based on their religion or belief. [38] Systemic faithism may appear neutral on its surface, but have an “adverse effect” or exclusionary impact on people belonging to particular communities of belief.
Example: The standard work week and statutory holiday calendar in Ontario is organized around the Christian Sabbath and high holy days (Christmas and Easter). While this structure is understandable given Canada’s history and demographics, it may adversely affect non-Christians, some of whom may therefore need to seek out special accommodations to observe their own faith holy days.’
The fake outrage over the CHRC discussion paper started when a “reporter” for Blacklocks (a group that the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery originally refused to accredit) wrote:
“Christmas is discriminatory, says a Canadian Human Rights Commission report. Observance of Jesus’ birth is “an obvious example” of religious bias rooted in colonialism, wrote the Commission: “No one is free until we are all free.””
Needless to say the word “Jesus” isn’t anywhere in the discussion paper.
The National Post’s Tristin Hopper wrote:
“The Canadian Human Rights Commission, which wields broad quasi-judicial powers, argued that a day off on Christmas is ‘discriminatory’”
It did’t say that, of course, but he goes on to write:
“Canada’s first Sikh temple opened in 1908 in Vancouver, and according to the Vancouver Heritage Foundation was an “inter-religious space where non-Sikhs also held executive positions.” The country’s oldest Jewish congregation dates back to 1768 in Montreal.
None of this is mentioned in the discussion paper. Rather, it focuses primarily on the one glaring exception to Canada’s record on religious tolerance: The decades-long state push to eradicate traditional Indigenous spirituality in favour of Christianity, mostly through the Indian Residential School system.”
The phrase “… the one glaring exception to Canada’s record on religious tolerance…” let me know that Tristin’s opinion isn’t based on even a passing knowledge of Canadian (or Canadian Jewish) history.
If the CHRC’s intent was, as they stated, “to explore the concept of religious intolerance,… and the mechanisms that perpetuate it.” they have no better place to start than Canada’s press and its legislatures.
Tim 15:48 on 2023-11-30 Permalink
@jeather: what rights of non-Christians are being infringed upon by having a stat holiday that falls on Easter?