Michael October - November

Alain Pilote

On September 10, 2013, Pauline Marois, Premier of

the Province of Quebec and leader of the Parti Quebe-

cois, accompanied by Bernard Drainville, the minister

responsible for Democratic Institutions, unveiled her

proposal of a “charter of Quebec values”, which aims

at banning “overt” religious symbols for civil servants,

in order to “safeguard the neutrality of the State.”

This charter states that judges, police officers,

prosecutors, public daycare workers, teachers, or hos-

pital workers — while they are on the job — can not

wear overtly religious objects (Muslim head scarves,

Jewish skullcaps, Christian crosses or medals, etc.)

“Conspicuous” symbols would not be allowed, but

very small symbols (like rings or earrings) would be.

As a member of parliament noted, “Who will deter-

mine if a symbol is conspicuous or not, is too big or

overtly religous or not ? Will there be religious police

officers to check around the necks of civil servants

what is allowed and what isn’t ? Will they have to carry

a tape to measure the sizes of crosses, medals, etc.?”

On November 7, 2013, this proposed charter of val-

ues was tabled at the National Assembly (Quebec Par-

liament) as Bill 60, and was titled the “Charter affirming

the values of state secularism and religious neutrality

and of equality between women and men, and provid-

ing a framework for accommodation requests.” The

September proposal remained practially unchanged,

and even more strict. The text of the bill specifies that

“in the exercise of their functions, personnel members

of public bodies must not wear objects such as head-

gear, clothing, jewelry or other adornments which, by

their conspicuous nature, overtly indicate a religious

affiliation.”

Immediately after its unveiling in September, this

charter has triggered a flood of reactions throughout

the province, including the vast majority of the State

employees who do not see the necessity for such a

ban. Even three former Quebec premiers and leaders

of the Parti Quebecois said that Mrs. Marois was going

too far, and should not ban religious signs. However,

this has not made her back down.

A real blow against this bill came on October 17

when the Quebec Human Rights Commission, led by

Jacques Fremont, a constitutional expert appointed

by the PQ last spring, issued a 27-page report ex-

plaining that the proposed charter was a violation of

the Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms

(voted by the Quebec National Assembly in 1975), a

violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Free-

doms (voted by the House of Commons in 1982), and

of course, a violation of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights (voted by the United Nations in 1948).

Fremont added that this “charter of values” proposed

by the PQ would not stand up to a legal challenge.

“The courts would rip it to shreds,” he said.

The report explains that “the proposed prohibi-

tion stems not only from a misconception regarding

freedom of religion as protected by the Charter and

by the principles of international human rights law,

but it also misinterprets the neutrality requirement

that must be observed by the state.” For the Com-

mission, this “religious neutrality requirement ap-

plies primarily to government institutions, but not to

public sector employees.”

“Freedom of religion is protected by Quebec’s

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms: Section 3

guarantees fundamental freedoms, including freedom

of conscience and religion, and Section 10 prohibits

discrimination based on religion.

“The state’s institutions must be neutral, not

the individuals. Public service employees, as well as

people using government services, have the right to

freedom of religion and conscience.

“Wearing a symbol of one’s religion does not

mean a person is trying to impose his or her religion to

others or is proselytizing. Wearing a religious symbol

does not prevent an employee from doing his or her

work in a neutral and impartial manner.

The state cannot use religious neutrality

to justify banning a public service employee

from wearing a “conspicuous” religious sym-

bol in the workplace. On the contrary, the

state’s neutrality ensures people the right to

practice their religion. Thus, asking a woman

to take off her hijab when working in the pub-

lic sector contravenes the Charter, as does

asking a civil servant to remove his kippa or his turban.”

The Parti Quebecois is in a minority position in

the Quebec Parliament, and all the opposition parties

have already said they will vote against this bill as it

is now presented. So, since this bill would be rejected

by the courts, and has no chance of becoming law

under its present form, why does Pauline Marois per-

sists with it? It is simply a crass political game to get

votes at the next general election by making Quebec-

ers believe that the PQ actually “stands up” for them

to defend “Quebec’s identity and values.”

Excerpts from the debates in the Quebec Parliament

on November 7, 2013, when Bill 60 was introduced,

clearly shows this political game, with the following

exchange beyween Jean Marc Fournier, parliamentary

leader of the Liberal opposition, and Premier Marois.

Jean Marc Fournier: “This discriminatory dress

code has been called by the Quebec Commission of

Rights the most radicval attack on the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms... In the name of religious neutrality, the

PQ has decided to pass from a society where the cit-

izens are free to practice their faith in a State that pro-

motes or favors no particular religion, to a society in

which the citizens are discriminated because of their

faith, in a State that wants to abolish all religious phe-

nomenon.

“According to the PQ, the neutrality of the State is

so much in peril that individual rights and freedoms

must be abolished. Yet, the Quebec Commission of

Rights wrote: “The Commission... does not report a

single situation in which the wearing of religious sym-

bols by a public sector worker would have threatened

the principle of religious neutrality.”

Pauline Marois replied: “I think you and I must not

be living on the same planet... What we are advocating

is the neutrality of the State... This does not infringe on

the rights of anyone because freedom of speech and

freedom of religious expression will be respected by

all Quebecers, by the government, and by our institu-

tions.”

How can Pauline Marois seriously claim to “re-

spect freedom of religious expression” while pushing

legislation that would see public-sector employees

fired for refusing to remove religious symbols? On

“planet PQ”, anything is possible...

Several commentators have noticed that this de-

bate on Quebec’s secular charter has become a trial

where all religions are accused of being harmful to

society. (Open-line programs, letters to newspapers

and comments on social networks are there to prove

it.) Political pundits accuse the PQ of encouraging and

surfing on a wave of “fear of the stranger”, of an al-

leged “Muslim peril” for Quebec.

This is totally dishonest for the PQ to promote this

fear, for it is a mistake and a danger to demonize Islam,

and to lump all the Muslims together. All Muslims are

not members of Al Qaida! The vast majority of Mus-

lims are peaceful and do not want to resort to violence;

it is only a handful of radicals who have hijacked the

whole of Islam and are using it for their own political

purpose, by interpreting the Koran in a fundamentalist

way, since some of its verses, taken out of context and

wrongly interpreted, might indeed seem to justify the

use of violence against Christians and Jews.

On this issue of Islamic fundamentalism, Pope

Francis wrote in his new Apostolic Exhortation

Evan-

gelii Gaudium

(The Joy of the Gospel): “Faced with

disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our

respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to

avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and

the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every

form of violence.” (n. 253.)

A few line further, talking about religious free-

dom in Western societies, Pope Francis added:

“The

respect due to the agnostic or non-believing minor-

ity should not be arbitrarily imposed in a way that

silences the convictions of the believing majority or

ignores the wealth of religious traditions. In the long

run, this would feed resentment rather than toler-

ance and peace.”

(n. 255.)

Other penetrating observers noticed that it is not

only the Islamic faith that is targeted by this charter

of the PQ government, but all religions in general are

being attacked, including the Roman Catholic Church.

When one hears Minister Drainville say, about day care

centers: “We have decided to protect children who are

more easily influenced and more vulnerable... We do

No to Pauline Marois’ secular charter !

No need to ban religious symbols for civil servants

No to closed secularism that forbids any religion

Examples of religious symbols not allowed

in Quebec’s proposed Bill 60

Despite all the opposition to this charter, Quebec

Premier Pauline Marois does not want to back down

We are being told by the Quebec gov-

ernment that a charter of values is neces-

sary to protect the State from the influence

of religion. When will we see a charter of

values to protect the State from the power

of High Finance?

MICHAEL October/November/December 2013