Read the article and give answer of 3 question which are givenbelow

Religion Versus the Charter: Canada’s commitment tomulticulturalism is being tested in new and unexpected ways

By Janice Gross Stein

University of Toronto Magazine

Winter 2007

1. Canadians are proudly multicultural. Along with publicly fundedhealth care, multiculturalism has become part of the sticky stuffof Canadian identity. Section 27 of the constitution, the CanadianCharter of Rights and Freedoms, provides that the charter “shall beinterpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation andenhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.”
2. Canada is unique among western democracies in itsconstitutional commitment to multiculturalism – a commitment thathas worked extraordinarily well in practice. In our large cities,many cultures live peacefully with one another. One need only watchWorld Cup soccer in Toronto to testify to the city’s culturaldiversity. Bystanders are welcomed and invited to join Ghanaians,French, Italians, Portuguese and Koreans, who take to the streetsto wave flags in celebration. At its best, multiculturalism inCanada is inclusive, rather than exclusionary.
3. Despite extraordinary successes, the Canadian commitment tomulticulturalism is being tested in unexpected ways. A resurgenceof orthodoxy in Christianity, Islam and Judaism is sharpening linesof division between “them” and “us.” Canadians are uncertain aboutwhat limits, if any, there are to embedding diverse religious aswell as cultural traditions within the Canadian context. We knowpretty well what the “multi” in multicultural means, but are muchless confident about “culture.” Does culture in Canada mean just arespect for pluralism and difference? Or, is there more? Have weproduced a broader set of shared values that must, at some point,bump up against the diversity and difference that we celebrate asan important part of who we are?
4. There is a sniff of smugness in our celebration of oursuccesses as a multicultural society. That smugness, a culturallysanctioned political correctness, is becoming less acceptable asreal divisions creep into the debate about cultural and religiousdifference. How far can respect for difference go? When does itconstrain freedom of expression? That issue boiled over when aDanish newspaper published cartoons that Muslims considereddefamatory. Anti-Semitic cartoons have provoked similar debates.Does freedom of expression permit one group to insult andstereotype another? And when does stereotyping subtly becomeincitement to hatred?
5. These questions are not important if multiculturalism islargely restricted to the celebration of song, dance, literature,language and food. It is this kind of celebration that is the stuffof the official multiculturalism policy in Canada’s large cities.On one July afternoon in Toronto, for example, residents couldchoose between the Corso Italia Toronto Fiesta and Afrofest.
6. We are on far more difficult terrain when we ask more seriousquestions about traditions of the church – and synagogue and mosque– and the state. How committed are we in Canada to thesecularization of public space? Do we welcome multiple religioussymbols in public squares in December or do we ban them all? Howfar can religious practice and celebration extend into publicspace? To what extent will the state, in the service of the freedomof religion, continue to allow churches, synagogues and mosques touphold policies that have an impact on the fundamental rights ofCanadians? And can public officials refuse to perform certainduties because of private religious beliefs? To the surprise ofmany Canadians who come from quite different ends of the politicalspectrum, the relationship between equality rights and the right tofreedom of religion is now on the public agenda.
7. *In Canada, we would not think of enforcing restrictionsagainst Hebrew skullcaps, Christian crosses or Muslim hijabs in ourpublic schools. On the contrary, we celebrate almost everyone’sreligious and national holidays. Where we are reluctant to go,however, is the conflict between the universal human rights that wetreasure and different religious and cultural traditions. Oneobvious fault line – one that we tiptoe around – is the rights ofwomen in different religious and cultural traditions in ourmidst.

(FYI *Recently in Quebec thepassage of Bill 62 disallows face coverings when giving/receiving apublic service and during protests.)

1. Women in Canada are guaranteed equal treatment and an equalvoice in the determination of our shared vision of the common good.We respect rights and we respect diversity, but at times the twocompete. How do we mediate these disputes? What to do about privatereligious schools, for example, that meet government criteria byteaching the official curriculum but segregate women in separateclassrooms? Should universities make space available to studentgroups that segregate women in worship? The University of Torontoallows religious organizations to determine how they use the spacethey are given for prayer. Currently, Jewish and Islamic servicesseparate men from women in religious services held on campus.McGill University in Montreal, by contrast, maintains that as anon-denominational university, it is not obligated to provideprayer space for any religious group.
2. These questions are not abstract, but very personal to me. WhenI challenged my rabbi recently about his long-standing refusal togive women in my congregation the right to participate fully andequally in religious services, he argued: “I have not taken theposition of ‘separate but equal,’ although I believe that a casecan be made for this perspective. I have not argued for a fullyegalitarian expression of Judaism, although I believe that a casecan be made for this perspective. Instead, I have pressed forincreased inclusion.”
3. Indeed, under his leadership our congregation now permits agreater degree of involvement for women in daily services, inpublic readings and in leading parts of the liturgy. These are farmore than cosmetic changes, but to me, as significant as thesechanges are, they are not enough. Women are still not counted aspart of the 10 people who must be present before prayers can begin.Only men count. I have had the extraordinary experience of sittingin a chapel and watching the leader of prayers count the men in theroom, his eyes sliding over me as he counted. For all intents andpurposes, not only did I not count, I was invisible.
4. Contrary to my rabbi, I do not think that any argument at allcan be made for separate but equal treatment. This kind of argumenthas a long and inglorious history of discrimination thatsystematically disadvantages some part of a community. Nor is itobvious why greater inclusion should be capped short of fullstatus, where women count as equals in constituting a prayer group.What principle is at work here? Even though the charter strictlyapplies only to public space, I take its spirit and its valuesseriously.
5. My religious obligation clashes openly and directly with valuesthat I hold deeply as a Canadian. Fortunately, there are Jewishcongregations in Toronto that are fully egalitarian. My culturaland religious community is sufficiently pluralistic that I canchoose among a wide variety of options. A resolution of my personaldilemma is available to me – I can vote with my feet – but theissue is public as well as private.
6. These religious institutions that systemically discriminateagainst women are recognized, at least implicitly, by governments.They enjoy special tax privileges given to them by governments.Religious institutions do not pay property tax and most receivecharitable status from the federal government. If religiousinstitutions, for example, are able to raise funds more easilybecause governments give a tax benefit to those who contribute, arereligious practices wholly private even when they benefit from thepublic purse? Are discriminatory religious practices againstwomen a matter only for religious law, as is currently the caseunder Canadian law which protects freedom of religion as a charterright? Or should the equality rights of the charter have someapplication when religious institutions are officially recognizedand advantaged in fundraising? Does it matter that the CatholicChurch, which has special entitlements given to it by the state andbenefits from its charitable tax status, refuses to ordain women aspriests?
7. How can we in Canada, in the name of religious freedom,continue furtively and silently to sanction discriminatorypractices? I have deliberately chosen a personal issue – the issueof women’s participation in religious services in my own synagogue– to open up this difficult discussion of the desirable balancebetween the right to freedom of religion and other charter rights.Some would urge silence and patience until a new social consensusemerges, until we rebalance. Opening difficult conversations tooearly can fracture communities, inflict deep wounds and doirreversible damage to those who are most open to experimentation.In my own congregation, I have been counselled for the last fiveyears to be patient. Give it time, I’m told, and the synagogue willbecome fully egalitarian.
8. I find it hard to be patient into the indefinite future, withno commitments from my religious leadership. I worry that changewill stall unless we keep a civil but difficult conversation going.There is no question that there is a conflict between equalityrights, on the one hand, and the right to freedom of religion, onthe other. The law recognizes that conflict, but we need to askhard questions about the appropriate balance. If I am expected tobe patient, almost endlessly patient, then religious leaders mustbe cognizant of the responsibilities of their organizations thatreceive charitable status and public benefit to engage withCanadian culture as it is expressed in our most fundamentallaws.

Janice Gross Stein is the BelzbergProfessor of Conflict Management and director of the Munk Centrefor International Studies. This article is adapted from a longeressay about multiculturalism that appeared in the September issueof the Literary Review of Canada.

Questions

1. Paragraph 6: What is now on the publicagenda.
2. Paragraph 7: What is there a conflict between? What isthe ‘fault line’ that we tiptoe around?
3. Paragraphs 8 and 13: Stein notes in Paragraph 11 thatthe Charter only strictly applies to public space. However, theseissues are now spilling out into other spaces such as privatereligious schools, universities, and churches. Yet, she argues thatthe Charter actually does apply to private religious schools,universities, and churches. Summarize how Ms. Stein explains theconflicts that are arising in these each of these ‘private’spaces.