Quebec has done it again; the uproar over a ban on Sikh turbans in soccer has just subsided when the government is proposing the Charter of Quebec Values.
The Parti Quebecois government seeks to amend the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms to ban most religious symbols from public institutions such as hospitals, clinics, public schools, day care centres, government and other public buildings. Hijabs, niqabs, burkas, turbans, yarmulkes and visible crosses would all be banned.
It is believed all health workers, public school teachers, civil servants and public daycare workers would have to leave their religious symbols at home when they go to work.
Explaining the reason for the proposals, Premier Pauline Marois has said they are aimed at preserving “our identity, our language, our institutions and our values.”
There is no doubt that Premier Marois’ government is heading for a showdown. The proposed rules have already been branded by critics as discriminatory, divisive draconian, and even reminiscent of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. However, the crucifix that hangs in the provincial legislature will be exempted because it is a cultural artifact from Quebec’s past. Montreal’s Jewish General Hospital and some unnamed higher education institutions will also be exempt.
A human-rights lawyer Julius Grey, who has fought numerous constitutional cases, is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying the rules would likely fail a challenge under freedom-of-religion provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights. Because Quebec’s new rules would reportedly exempt private schools, the proposals risk driving minorities into separate, religious-based schools, he said.
Mr. Grey also said such “values” rules were more typical of the political right than of a party like the PQ that sees itself as progressive. “A charter of values smacks of the [U.S.] Tea Party,” Mr. Grey said.
A Montreal doctor, Dr. Sanjeet Singh Saluja, who calls himself a “Qubecker from birth” said the proposals make him feel as “a second class citizen.” He said his faith was important to him and he was considering leaving Quebec because of the proposals. I don’t think the Quebec government is worried even if it starts an exodus of professional sound citizens from the province.
Someone should educate Premier Marois and her government that “values” of a society are not undertaken by legislation and force; they are derived by people’s individual choices and preferences. Governments who legislate what and where people should wear are running the risk of losing its residents’ confidence, culminating in election loses.
In a society that is predominantly religious, such a move could create obstacles to successful integration of immigrants in Quebec. It is dangerous and uncalled for.
When people elect a new government, they expect it to give priority to such measures as creating jobs and undertake other worthwhile projects that benefit its residents. It appears the Quebec government, during its short life span, has been giving priority to issues such as what to wear and where to wear, considering it as more important than bread and butter issues.
It is unfortunate that the federal government has chosen to keep quiet on the proposals, considering them as a provincial matter. When a provincial government in Canada goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is not a provincial but a Canadian matter, requiring leadership and reaction from Ottawa.
Quebec has to be constantly reminded that it is one of the provinces of Canada where minority and religious rights are protected and practiced. It fails to recognize that it is part of a country which welcomes and respects immigrants, and champions minority rights. Measures aimed at provoking racial hatred and discriminate against minorities can be risky with precarious consequences.
It is a shame that instead of channeling its resources to creating a vibrant, meaningful and satisfied immigrant society, the government specializes in proposing unpopular measures.
Peter Stockland, director of media services for Cardus, a think tank that draws on Christian social thought, put it: “When they seek to control religious life for citizens, they are not cultivating values. They are certainly not ensuring a values-neutral use of public space. They are, on the contrary, using the state’s monopoly on power to impose a politically tailored view of religious life that separates us from each other – and from ourselves.”
I wonder what Premier Marois will bring next from her secret bag of tricks?
