The Quebec CAQ government bill to repress religious symbols worn by public officials in positions of power and the tabling of a bill placing restrictions on such religious garb and symbols was presented in Quebec's National Assembly to the wild applause of the majority of the the French media and the general public who relish the idea of dumping on minorities.I am reminded of René Levesque who when presented Bill 101 by Camille Laurin noted privately that he was saddened by the effect of the bill on personal freedom of choice, even as he accepted its greater necessity.
Not so today with the restrictions placed on minorities over religious garb, as the general atmosphere in the French community can be best described as outright giddiness, where serving up a bitter pill to minorities is seen as a just reward for those who dare pollute Quebec's anti-religious foundation.
Say what you will, the effort is wildly popular in Quebec, where the majority of citizens view religious orthodoxy (especially in the Muslim community) as anti-democratic, misogynistic and one which promotes values inconsistent with the accepted norm in Quebec.
The French press is replete with scathing opinions directed towards Quebec anglos and English Canada for daring to object to these restrictions, reminding us that Quebec is its own nation and one which marches to a different tune.
The idea that Canada considers Quebec a racist society is particularly galling to Quebec media types who rail against those opinions, though try as I might, I haven't seen any editorial articles in the Canadian press expressing those opinions.
But Canadian politicians were quick to object with Justin Trudeau telling reporters that;
"It is unthinkable to me that in a free society we would legitimise discrimination against citizens based on their religion," Trudeau told reporters in Halifax on Thursday.
This had little effect on Quebecers whose minds are made up on the subject, and Trudeau's missive has the effect of driving voters towards the Bloc Quebecois, something that Andrew Scheer is thrilled over.
While saying that he disagreed with the bill, Scheer offered this lukewarm and low-keyed response.
“The Quebec government has made a choice and now it is up to the elected members in Quebec to determine the fate of the bill,” he said.
Quebec politicians and their minions in the press have been front and center telling all who will listen that the bill is not anti-religion and certainly not anti-Muslim and that Quebec is an open and welcoming society.
In this respect, they are preaching to the choir, (excuse the religious reference) because the reality is different and every now and then the truth spills out.
“Quebec's minister for the status of women drew condemnation from opposition politicians earlier this year after she said the hijab (a headscarf worn by many Muslim women who feel it is part of their religion) is a symbol of female oppression.”In 2015 a Quebec judge contended that a defendant who was wearing a hijab was violating a Quebec law stipulating people must be “suitably dressed” in the courtroom.
“Decorum is important. Hats and sunglasses, for example, are not allowed. And I don’t see why scarves on the head would be either,” Marengo said at the time. “I will therefore not hear you if you are wearing a scarf on your head, just as I would not allow a person to appear before me wearing a hat or sunglasses on his or her head, or any other garment not suitable for a court proceeding.”Recently, an elected council women in Montreal Lyne Shand had these choice words over Muslims.;
The judge’s comments triggered numerous complaints to the judicial council, which decided 28 of them were founded. It formed a committee to investigate Marengo’s conduct in June 2016.
Marengo asked Quebec Superior Court to force the judicial council to end its investigation and lost in February 2017.
In February 2018, the Court of Appeal also found against her, ruling that “the continuation of the inquiry by the committee, while a delicate exercise in the circumstances, is the only possible avenue for an enlightened justice.”
In October, the Court of Appeal ruled in a separate case that obliging El-Alloul to remove her Muslim head scarf was a violation of her fundamental rights.”
“In a Facebook post, which has since been taken down, she complains that the ophthalmologist assigned to her case was a veiled woman;
“Had it not been an emergency, I would have refused to be treated by her,” the post reads in French. “I’m raging because it’s really the Islamization of our country. We have to accept everything: their reasonable accommodation, removing our crucifix (and I’m not a believer), etc., etc.”....
...“I’m not racist, I’m just a realist,” the comment continued.
“Have you noticed how each time you see a veiled woman, she’s pushing a carriage with a baby?”
Now the law doesn't even cover doctors or nurses, but the above is an example of what is to come. As I predicted in a previous post, the effect of the law will spill over into general attacks on any Muslims wearing a headscarf in public.
It will not be pretty.
As for the mean-spirited nature of the debate, a poll that shows that a majority of Quebecers object to a grandfather clause that would allow those already employed in the public service to continue wearing their headscarf.
And so a public service employee with perhaps ten years on the job as a clerk at the license bureau would have to choose to remove her headscarf or be fired over it.
That is what Quebecers want.
Right now the law doesn't apply to kindergartens, daycares and teachers. We can expect demands to be made in that regard.
Religious schools have long been the bane of secularists who object to students being subjected to the teachings of the Bible or Koran. They will be the next target.
The CAQ government cleverly kept its ace in the hole and surprised everybody with the proposal to remove the Crucifix in the National Assembly, something they promised never to do, thus preempting charges of double-standards.
But it opens the door to attacks on all societal religious symbols and the question is fair to ask.
Is banning Christmas next?
Of course, the argument will be made (correctly) that the Christmas holiday is part of Quebec's patrimony and has been celebrated since the birth of the nation.
But I would remind those who argue such, that Jews have been wearing kippot in public for over 250 years in Quebec and if that is not a patrimonal aquired right, I don't know what is.
