Dear Editor:

A couple of points: first, I entirely agree with the individual who noted that Quebec is known for its xenophobia. I am also Canadian and have followed questions of Quebec nationalism for many years. It may be true that within Montreal - a genuinely cosmopolitan city - xenophobia is relatively low.(And Montreal has, in fact, been the site of some of the recent controversies in Quebec over how to accommodate religious minorities) Outside of Montreal, however, white Francophone Quebecers have long wrestled with the question of how to relate to the strangers in their midst. Quebec nationalism, as a concept, has struggled with this question: is it an ethnic nationalism, rooted in the white-skinned Francophones who have a long history in the province, or is it an civic nationalism, which requires that its adherents speak French, but is otherwise open to all races, ethnicities and creeds? There has been no satifactory resolution to these questions.

I should also point out that I am originally from Alberta and there is not much reason to believe that Alberta is any more intolerant of racial and ethnic differences than any other part of Canada. Canada is a fairly tolerant country - bearing in mind that racism and bigotry is a human quality found in all societies. Moreover, as in Quebec, there is a real split in rural and urban attitudes. Still, Canada has, so far, been able to adapt to many different groups with relatively little social disruption, particularly in comparison to Europe. Whether or not this situation will continue remains unclear - the debate about the limits and nature of accommodation is one that all modern societies have to have.

As a side note, a recent article in the Globe and Mail on this controversy quotes a young Muslim woman who wears a niqab as saying that she has no problem in revealing her face to authorities for security purposes - she has done so for driver's license photos, passports, etc. She did indicate she would rather unveil to a woman than a man, but this preference would not prevent her from complying with authority. Thus, in many ways, it looks like this story is a non-issue. The Muslim women themselves were quite happy to do what was required of them in order to vote.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor:

An update on this issue: in fact, when the electoral officer OK'd allowing Muslim women to wear their niqab when voting, he was only enforcing existing laws. As it turns out, it is already legal to vote with some obstruction over the face if you can demonstrate your identity in other ways, including filling out a sworn statement indicating that you are who you say. The Globe and Mail's Friday editorial says the following:

"Quebec's rules provide for unusual circumstances. A voter must have her name on the list of electors in order to vote. She must present one of five pieces of identification: a health insurance card, a driver's licence, a Canadian passport, a certificate of Indian status or a Canadian Forces ID card. In the absence of those documents – or if she won't show her face and therefore can't make use of photo ID – she has two choices. She may state under oath that she is the elector listed and present two documents that together prove her identity; or she may be accompanied by a second person who has the right documentation and can attest to the voter's identity. The rules, devised without reference to the niqab, nonetheless cover the niqab."

Note this last part: the rules were devised without reference to the niqab. I suppose they were meant for circumstances where, for some reason, a person's face cannot be revealed or matched to existing documentation - eg. if bandaged or disfigured.

The issue really is one of tolerance and accommodation. Quebec has cast itself in a deeply unflattering light on this one.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor,

This is an interesting article. Actually, despite being a political scientist and living in Canada all my life, I'd never heard of Rachel Marsden. Of course, the Sun newspapers are absolute trash and I don't read them, so that probably explains it. However, I do remember the Simon Fraser University case very well - at the time, it was portrayed as an example of political correctness gone mad. I did not know that the woman involved was Ms. Marsden, and that is a fact that really does call a lot of things into question. I certainly support the idea of giving people a second chance, but Ms. Marsden seems to have a long-established pattern of stalking. She clearly needs help. I can only hope that she has found some kind of serious therapy and that she really won't be appearing before some criminal court ever again. But, quite honestly, I suspect that this is not the last that we've heard of this kind of behaviour coming from her. (And isn't Ms. Marsden referring to Presidnent Ahmadinejad of Iran as "crazy" a bit rich, given her history?)

At any rate, one less scary conservative in Canada can't be a bad thing. Sorry for foisting these people on you Americans, but better you than us. Besides they fit in better south of the border.

One last point: her co-hosts did not know what the Gulf of Tonkin was? And the fact that Ms. Marsden did makes her a political expert? I would say that's stretching things a bit, but then Fox is not known for the quality of its news coverage, so I guess that's par for the course.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine