It is a debate fraught with danger, with the distinct possibility that things will get awfully nasty.
As for me, I can honestly see the point of view of each camp and so I am the proverbial fence-sitter, watching the events unfold, feeling like a fan watching a hockey game between two teams that I have no interest in.
I am reminded of the scene in the movie Fiddler on the Roof, where the protagonist Tevye, is called upon to referee a difference of opinion.
Let's start with something that we all should believe in, that is that religious freedom is a tenant of a free and democratic society. We are free to worship or not worship as we see fit.
But that being said, religious freedom is not absolute and where religious beliefs run counter to the law of the land, it is the civic law that prevails, something that some religiously observant people disagree with.
Religious laws and customs that provide for female circumcision, forced marriages, underage marriages, polygamy, some animal and all human sacrifices or restrictive education are not allowed. Parents cannot refuse a blood transfusion or a necessary medical procedure for their children on religious grounds, while ironically, they can refuse it for themselves. There is a fine line of reasonableness that our society walks in order to satisfy our right to religious freedom and yet insure our basic human right to health, happiness and well-being.
But that being said, religious freedom is not absolute and where religious beliefs run counter to the law of the land, it is the civic law that prevails, something that some religiously observant people disagree with.
Religious laws and customs that provide for female circumcision, forced marriages, underage marriages, polygamy, some animal and all human sacrifices or restrictive education are not allowed. Parents cannot refuse a blood transfusion or a necessary medical procedure for their children on religious grounds, while ironically, they can refuse it for themselves. There is a fine line of reasonableness that our society walks in order to satisfy our right to religious freedom and yet insure our basic human right to health, happiness and well-being.
Restricting religious garb in public certainly runs counter to Canada's Charter of Rights but the new Premier has already stated that he's prepared to use the infamous 'Notwithstanding Clause' to sidestep those charter protections.
This represents an affront to many, who believe that opting out of the Charter is a legalized cheat.
However, it's important to note that Quebec never signed on to the Charter, which was rammed down its throat by the rest of the country.
So among Quebec francophones, both federalist or sovereigntist, using the Notwithstanding Clause is considered not only morally justified, but rather as some sweet revenge.
One of the main reasons the Parti Quebecois' Charter of Secularism failed, was because it painted too broad a stroke, banning all manner of religious garb for public and para-public employees.
The edict would apply to nurses, doctors, teachers, clerks and support staff in hospitals, government-run senior citizen residences and in fact anybody who directly or indirectly received a paycheque that ultimately came from government.
It was too ambitious a project for a minority government, which also rejected a CAQ compromise, a promise for legislative support in return for limiting such a ban to those public employees in positions of power, like police and judges.
And so now that the CAQ is in power it should be no surprise that it wants to enact a law similar to what they proposed, that is, that restrictions on religious garb be placed on those public employees in positions of power.
Why?
Well, let us consider the secularist's point of view, which is that those who wear religious garb in public, likely hold the view that God's law supersedes the law of the land, something that someone who doesn't believe in God would have a hard time accepting. It actually isn't the garb that is in conflict, but the point of view that the garb or symbols represent.
When I went to cegep, the very first year that Vanier college came into existence, we attended classes in what was clearly a Church beforehand and where crucifixes dotted the campus with the school and the government holding that these were historic and cultural symbols. Fair enough.
I had a teacher who was a nun (that probably couldn't be permitted today,) who gave a course in children's literature. She was a kind, affable, well-read and informed person who just happened to wear a full nun's cassock while teaching class.
It did not bother or offend me, but I am forever reminded of an incident in a class where a female student was called upon to give an interpretation of a fairy tale and where her slant was that the story was an allegory for sexual power with a reference to an erect penis.
It was here that I said to myself...Whoa! This should get interesting, and it did.
The teacher had great difficulty discussing the subject and was clearly uncomfortable. She steered the discussion away from sex, but most in the class (I assume) felt as I did, that her deep religious beliefs affected her teaching, and not in a good way.
It wasn't that big a deal, but something that I remember.
And so with a judge who wears a hijab, turban or a kippa, it is fair to question whether their deep religious beliefs, beliefs that may hold that God's law trumps our civil law, will adversely affect their decision. It's a fair concern.
People who wear religious garb publicly remind us of their deep devotion to God and the accompanying baggage. While it is a personal statement made for personal reasons, there is a message that is impossible to ignore.
In some respects, it is similar to someone who wears a "Black Lives Matter" or a "Greenpeace" t-shirt. You know where these people are coming from and that is fine.
But it isn't fine for a judge to wear these articles of clothing in a court, (that is why they wear a black frock.) They may hold whatever personal beliefs they choose, but should not display them openly, lest they give the impression that their judgments will be based on these core beliefs, rather than the civil law.
The same can be said of a teacher or policeman whom all have the right to believe what they will, but should not wear those beliefs on their sleeves, lest they give the wrong impression.
And so one can understand the point of view that those public employees in a position of power (including teachers in public schools) be reasonably restricted from wearing religious paraphernalia.
But the idea that employees at the license bureau or the SAQ, or those mopping the floor in a hospital or treating patients as a technician, nurse or doctor should be restricted from wearing religious symbols is pretty much indefensible. One would have to believe that a nurse in a hijab, a doctor in a kippah or a technician in a turban could possibly have their religious beliefs impede or give the impression that the religious views could impede them from providing equal service to all.
As for the secularists who want to ban religious symbols in public buildings, especially in the National Assembly where a crucifix that sits over the speaker's chair is causing a big stink, they should remember that while the crucifix may have a Catholic heritage, there are plenty of other symbols that would have to be treated the same.
Does all this also have to go, or can we agree that these symbols have become historical vestiges that no longer have a religious connotation?
The same goes for our Quebec flag which clearly displays a Christian cross.
Should we be obliged to change the name of streets and towns that have a Christian appellation? Should the crucifix on top of Mount-Royal be removed?
Most Quebecers of francophone heritage have little affinity for the Church, with less than 5% attending church services regularly and few marrying in church or marrying at all. Baptism rates are falling precipitously and it is fair to say that the Catholic Church is pretty much done in Quebec or will be within another generation.
Why then the attachment to symbols of the past that underscored Quebec's strong bond between church and state?
Likely the answer lies not in the affinity to the Catholic Church but rather in the outrage many Quebeckers feel in being told to erase their history.
But a caveat ....
A couple of years ago I wrote a blog post about an incident I witnessed in a Canadian Tire.
A young Muslim female cashier was accosted by an old francophone bag who castigated the girl for wearing a hijab, a symbol, according to her of the young girl's enslavement.
The girl was driven to tears and I could not resist intervening, unloading on the racist bitch in the most unpleasant and cruel intervention I could muster.
This resulted in the manager intervening, removing the bleary-eyed cashier and leaving myself and the insulter to fend for ourselves.
It wasn't pleasant for any of us.
This is what we are to expect, vigilantes empowered by public policy unloading on innocent citizens based on their religious convictions.
Are you ready for that?
But a caveat ....
A couple of years ago I wrote a blog post about an incident I witnessed in a Canadian Tire.
A young Muslim female cashier was accosted by an old francophone bag who castigated the girl for wearing a hijab, a symbol, according to her of the young girl's enslavement.
The girl was driven to tears and I could not resist intervening, unloading on the racist bitch in the most unpleasant and cruel intervention I could muster.
This resulted in the manager intervening, removing the bleary-eyed cashier and leaving myself and the insulter to fend for ourselves.
It wasn't pleasant for any of us.
This is what we are to expect, vigilantes empowered by public policy unloading on innocent citizens based on their religious convictions.
Are you ready for that?
