Suffering more suffrage? A York University case study

This week York University unveiled a rather disturbing controversy on its campus that has had news channels buzzing and people like us wondering the degree to which society can actually claim it has made any kind of progress. The controversy surrounds a first-generation immigrant student who informed a professor that he was unable to participate in his group project because his religion did not allow him to work alongside women. The professor's initial response was to tell the student that he could not grant his request, seeing as York is a co-ed institution and so working with members of the opposite sex is inevitable. However, York's Centre for Human Rights sided against Professor Grayson, stating that he was required to accommodate the special needs of the student.

It's an extremely precarious debate and taking sides is essentially impossible without offending someone. The question can be easily simplified to what society ranks higher among its priorities: women's rights or religious rights? The federal government has stated its support of Professor Grayson's decision to deny the student's request, and I have to say that I agree with its choice of sides.

This may sound harsh, but Canada's legislation is one that recognizes and respects the rights of women in a way that cannot be equaled to the freedom of religion, simply because we are not a monotheologic nation. That means that although we promote the freedom of religion, there are so many caveats to each of the religions that thrive in Canada, it would be impossible to adhere to them all without somewhere overstepping the bounds of secular legalities. At the end of the day, Canada's legislation is not concrete on the degree of its tolerance of certain religions, but it is completely clear on its support of women as equals: deserving equal rights and respects to their male counterpart. And the fact that this is occurring in Canada is enough to make national legislation quite literally the law on the issue, so Professor Grayson's decision really just supports the rules of this country.

And anyways, isn't a freedom only a freedom until it usurps or harms the freedoms of another? In refusing to co-exist with his female peers, this student denies his female colleagues the respect they deserve as equals in the academic environment. In choosing to attend a co-ed institution like York University, the student chose Canada's social laws over his own religious affiliation from the get go; the idea that he would have to interact daily with women should have been assumed.

I was rather surprised but ultimately pleased to see that a member of the university's executive board also supported Grayson's decision during an interview with Global TV. The reason this surprised me was the member in question was himself an immigrant; my thought was that he would advocate for foreign religious freedom, being able to relate to the student's uneasy dilemma. However, this member of the board was in full support of Grayson's decision to deny the student's religious request, stating that without a doubt this student must recognize and adhere to the laws of the country he chooses to inhabit, and compromises must be made between religious beliefs and national laws.

The fact that anything less was ever considered by York University's Centre for Human Rights is highly disappointing, especially considering that at the end of the day, their decision to grant the rights of one student would tarnish the respect alloted to so many others. There has to be a line to tolerance somewhere. Some religions and cultures believe in suicide bombing as a way of offering sacrifice and dedication to a political mission, but I don't see the government of Canada rushing to legalize that as a way to appease its immigrant citizens. While the harm is less direct than my above example, telling a student that it is okay to refuse to work and co-operate with women is a digression in both the rights of women and the progress of society overall.

By no means am I dismissing the religious rights due to all of the immigrants who sought and continue to seek a safe home in Canada. What I'm saying is that, as with everything in life, there must be a hierarchy in situations like these, where several difficult issues are at stake. Ultimately, I believe that the rights of women--who make up a significant portion of our national population--should trump individual religious rights shared by a few. As for York University's Centre of Human Rights, they should probably reassess their own hierarchy and acknowledge that the sign on the office door says "Human" rights: a title which applies equally to all citizens, male and female, Muslim and Catholic, foreign and domestic.

Naturally, there are many opinions surrounding this matter, and we'd love to hear yours. Tweet or comment your thoughts on the issue--I do love a good debate.

Gotta book it,

JEM