Quebec Government Creates Committee on Religious/Cultural Diversity in Schools
The Quebec Minister of Education, Jean-Marc Fournier, announced today that he is creating a consultative committee on diversity in the province’s schools whose primary task will be to come up with “a clear and accessible definition of what is a reasonable accommodation” between the needs of children from cultural and religious minorities and the values of the officially secular public education system.
Over the past decade, there have been numerous controversies in Quebec society over how much space should be afforded religious symbols in public institutions, whether it be the right of practicing Muslim girls to wear the hijab headscarf in class or the right of young Sikh men to show up at school wearing the ceremonial dagger or kirpan.
There have been a number of studies and reports on the topic in recent years, including material by the Quebec Human Rights Commission on religious pluralism and the “duty of reasonable accommodation”.
As well, in the spring of 2006, the Library of Parliament published Freedom of Religion and Religious Symbols in the Public Sphere that compared the legislative context in a number of countries:
“This question touches on the presence of Islamic headscarves and Sikh kirpans in the school system, crucifixes in the courtroom and school, Sikh turbans in the workplace, and Jewish succahs on condominium balconies. Legal and public policy acceptance or accommodation of these religious symbols depends on a variety of factors, but is most often rooted in a constitutional proportionality test that balances the right to freedom of religion against the possible threat to safety, security and public order. However, different countries apply varying interpretations to this balance, driven by national political cultures and social histories that can have a profound impact on the scope accorded to freedom of religion through the interpretation of concepts of security and public order. While governments in traditional countries of immigration, such as Canada and the United States, perceive their role as one of accommodating all forms of religious expression in a neutral manner, more recent countries of immigration often apply a more restrictive and formally secular approach. In particular, France applies its historical policy of laïcité in a way that enforces strict secularism in the public domain, relegating overt forms of religious expression to the private sphere.”
Keep following Jack Straw’s provocation on the veil and burqa issues: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1842569.ece
Frankly I’m amazed that Fournier touched this live rail. Can he win, whatever postition is ultimately adopted?
Well, considering that “official Quebec” got its knuckles pretty seriously rapped by the Supreme Court in the kirpan case, maybe it’s a good thing to launch a reasoned discussion about accommodation. (I say that because the School Board and the Quebec courts made short work of the accommodation efforts of the kid’s school itself – and all of those establishment folks got reversed 9-0 in Ottawa.)
I think much of Canada outside Quebec figured that the SCC got it right and wondered why Quebec could get it so wrong. I recall, however, attending meeting after meeting of the Uniform Law Conference in the 1990s where the Quebec government sought tougher controls on knives. Knives have been a real problem in Quebec schools. I met one otherwise calm, rational, peacabloe Quebec lawyer whose teenage son carried a knife to his downtown Montreal school, and she allowed it for his self-defence!
So I think a number of Quebeckers came at the discussion from the other side: how do we attack the knife problem, rather than how do we accommodate someone whose religion requires the wearing of a knife. Getting everybody to understand that questions have more than one side would be useful.
Obviously there are some risks, but if we can’t have the discussion here, where in the world can we have it, and what does it mean if we can’t?
La position québécoise était plus près de la position adoptée par la France qui maintient la séparation entre la religion et l’État. En attendant que les écoles soient obligatoirement munies d’un crucifix derrière le prof, que certains se retournent vers la Mecque pendant que d’autres nettoient leurs kirpans, alors que d’autres révisent la Talmud durant la lévitation de leurs collègues, écoutons les enseignements de notre Cour suprême.
D’ailleurs, le Journal de Québec publie aujourd’hui un article de Lyse Payette intitulé “Des accomodements raisonnables”: édifiant!!
Elle cite un exemple qu’on lui a raconté à l’effet “qu’à l’UQAM, des étudiants musulmans et juifs ont demandé le report d’un examen de
mathématiques prétextant ne pas pouvoir le faire le vendredi, pour les musulmans, et le samedi, pour les juifs, à cause de leurs devoirs religieux. L’examen a été reporté au dimanche. Est-ce un “accommodement raisonnable”?”
Finalement, en deux mots, elle est d’avis que la Charte s’applique pour protéger la religion dans nos foyers mais qu’en société laïque, elle doit s’effacer.