Walter O. wrote: In other words, a "democracy" originally refers to a way of speaking ... a way of giving reasons to others. This is what we need to teach our young and our 'New Canadians.' ... Perhaps we need to clarify these imp. points to immigrants coming over in search of "freedom of religious exercise." We need to make it explicitly clear that "honour killings" will land you in jail for a very long time, as will physical and/or emotional abuse of your children. And that if you wish to have a drivers license issued to you, you will have to have a picture taken of your face - graven images or not. And if you are a Sikh and you wish to be a member of the Ontario Motorcycle Patrol, you will have to remove your turban and wear a motorcycle helmet. Surely these are not Draconian maxims. After all, Canada is not La France!" A few quibbles. First, the important points that Walter suggests should be pointed out to immigrants are not reasons nor ways of speaking. And I think it is a good thing that they are not reasons or ways of speaking. Contra Rawls and Habermas, what distinguishes liberal democracies, like Canada, is not a rational process but rather a legal process within which Canadians organize their social and political lives. So, as Walter notes, we have laws about killing, driver identification and road safety. There will have been many reasons why these laws were passed, and these reasons were not necessarily shared by all those supporting the laws, but for the sake of the country/province, what matters is the lawfulness of those laws. That is, what matters is these laws are understood as providing equal and fair constraints or rights on all, and that these constraints and rights are enforced by the coercive powers of the government. Second, when it comes to killing, drivers licenses and helmets, that some objections to laws are religious is irrelevant. What distinguishes Canada from France is that, in general, Canadian law does not concern itself with religious matters, only legal matters. What makes the French prohibition of the hijab or niqab objectionable is the obvious hypocrisy of a radically secular state concerning itself with religious reasons. I would, then, revise Walter's points so that all immigrants were made aware that the laws of Canada, including laws regarding killing, driver identification and road safety, apply equally to all people in Canada. It is this emphasis on the lawfulness of laws, as opposed to their reasons, which distinguishes Canada from France. Sincerely, Phil Enns ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html