Québec Values Infographic
On the website concerning the Québec Charter of Values you’ll find a statement from the minister, Bernard Drainville, and, if you follow the arrows at the bottom of each screen, the desideratum of “clear rules for everyone“, an “affirmation of Québec values” (“By affirming these values, we are proposing to build a strong Québec identity, whether one was born here or elsewhere.”), the principle of state neutrality, and, last, “five proposals” the government is making. One of these is the one that’s received most attention in the press: to “limit the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols.”
To assist your understanding of this proposal, the site offers these infographics, the first of which illustrates permissible symbols, the second of which shows the sort of symbols that should not be worn:
There’s so much here that needs discussion and analysis I don’t (yet) know where to begin.
I was hoping somebody would mention this. Does this mean that Rastafarians can’t wear shirts with a picture of “Mary Jane”? It is, after all, part of their sacrament.
Or, perhaps, the explanation for this PQ move is that, in honour of Rene L, Marois has taken up smoking (albeit something other than tobacco) and plans to replace the fleur-de-lis with a picture of that bud. (Is poutine an adequate solution for late night munchies?) Quebec shouldn’t plan on getting favoured nation status with B.C., though.
It’s too bad the Rhinoceros Party no longer exists. They’d have had a field day.
David
Your quote “One of these is the one that’s received most attention in the press: to “limit the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols.”” is missing important context.
From the rest of the web page: We propose to prohibit the wearing of overt and conspicuous religious symbols by state personnel in carrying out their duties.
The “state personnel” qualifier is an extremely important one and its being left out of a lot of the discussions. This post, like many others, would leave the reader with the impression that religious symbols are being generally prohibited, which is completely incorrect.
The three “authorized” items are not religious symbols. They’re jewellery. It’s no great concession to the freedom of religion to say, “You’re allowed to wear ankle bracelets.”
The disallowed items are highly visible expressions of religious belief and practice. In R. v. Big M Drug Mart, Dickson CJ wrote that s. 2(a) of the Charter protected “the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.” The proposed Quebec law is a slam-dunk violation.
The fact that the law is aimed at “state personnel in carrying out their duties” does not mitigate this problem, it exacerbates it: the Charter of Rights specifically applies to the federal and provincial governments (section 32(1)(b)).
I don’t think the Quebec government particularly cares about the Charter when it comes to matters such as this and I’m sure we’ll be talking about the notwithstanding clause soon enough.
In any event, my point was that many articles are overstating the scope of the proposed law, which doesn’t help productive discussion.
Is there any serious doubt that the Quebec action is motivated by Muslim practices, notably about the status of women (their hair should not be seen, their faces should not be seen), and the application to the symbols of other religions is just a way of trying to make it defensible? Does anyone at all care whether someone wears a crucifix or kippa?
Madame Marois’ defence of the measures tend to come down to equality of the sexes, and it’s only Muslim practices that raise that issue (unless there are still some nuns in Quebec with the full habit.)
Maybe some people outside urban areas are still uncomfortable at the sight of turbans, But trbans are not a problem except for safety reasons, and the courts have defined the limits of that without legislation. No doubt some people in Quebec still resent the SCC’s holding about kirpans in schools, but since there was no evidence of offensive use of them, the ruling was pretty predictable (and right).
Some orthodox Jewish women do not show their hair in public; they wear a wig. Will those women be required to remove their wigs if they are public servants? Or is a religiously-neutral covering worn for religious purposes acceptable?
Will phase II be religiously-motivated conduct? Will the strictly observant Muslim or orthodox Jew who refuses to shake hands with someone of the opposite sex be required to do so on the pain of losing his or her job? (Slaw has discussed before the challenge of someone refusing to do his or her public job because of religious beliefs, notably but not exclusively relating to performing same-sex marriages. At some point people have to do the job they are hired to do, but they don’t have to look the same as everyone else while they do it.)
I would have thought that Quebec, like the rest of Canada, would want immigrants of all beliefs and cultures to integrate as thoroughly as possible into our society, and barring them from public sector work (or voting) for observing the religious or cultural practices of their homelands, or their parents’ homelands, will not help their integration.
@Mike You’re right, of course. I think I assumed everyone knew this, though I ought to have made it clear. The only possible means of enforcement of an edict like this would be in respect of people who depend on the government for their salary. It’s interesting to me that reports have Premier Marois saying that Québec will not use the notwithstanding clause; some have speculated that this is in order to force the issue to the SCC, where, as Jordan says, it’s likely to go against Québec, making, one imagines, a casus belli.
Imagine for a moment enforcing this requirement. If for no other reason, you might agree that it’s a poor law or likely to lead to an impossible drafting situation. Symbolism is too plastic to be controlled like this; religion is too irrational to be “contained” by rational measures, even in its expression; dress is now sufficiently unconventional in possibility at least that attempts to impose new “sumptuary laws” are bound to fail. This sort of broad policy could only work where there is a very broad consensus among those sought to be governed that it’s right to go along with it — and that’s exactly what you don’t have here — or, alas, where there’s a majority that wishes to enforce conformity on the minority and is willing to use social and other pressures to bring that about.
John
I doubt that there’s a Quebec voter majority in support of the initiative, but that’s just my view, unless all the naïve soft Bloc Quebecois supporters who voted NDP because they believed the JackL’s call turn out to be xenophobic, too.
Whether there’s a xenophobic “pur laine” bloc – recall Parizeau’s blame casting – is different.
As somebody once elsewhere (I’ve permission) – this is bad doggerel even for me
Pur Laine Lament
They put the whole Québécois nation
In this provincial reservation
Took away our way of life
Pure wool pulled over our eyes
Took away our native tongue
Taught their English to our young
…
They took the whole Québécois nation
Put us in this reservation
But we still wear the fleur-de-lis
And we’re pur laine when we sleep
We’re a true bleu Québécois nation
Except for Jacques who’s partly Haitian
(parody of Indian Reservation: Words and Music by John D. Loudermilk)
Speaking of Haitian, I suppose this means that Baron Samedi won’t be making any appearances on behalf of the PQ.
These measures are clearly contrary to the Canadian Charter’s protection of the right to equality and to religious freedom: for example, an observant Sikh would no longer be able to work in the public or para-public sector, but an observant Protestant would face no such impediment. It is near impossible to see how such drastic measures could be justified under s. 1, either with respect to the goals (projecting the State’s neutrality) or or the means chosen to achieve them.
Of course, the measures would also be at odds with Québec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (which serves as a sort of beefed-up provincial human rights code), if it were not for the fact that they are to be enacted as an amendment to the Québec Charter.
I can only hope that the lawyers advising the provincial government were clear on these points, failing which they would not have fulfilled their professional duties properly. Assuming that was their advice, we also have to assume that the PQ government is prepared for and possibly relishing the prospect of seeing these measures struck down by the courts pursuant to the constitutional amendments of 1982, which the PQ never accepted.
No question that the PQ plan is to stir up trouble with Ottawa, end up before the Supremes, lose, and then complain (loudly) that the ROC just doesn’t get us here in La Belle Province. The problem for them: I think they’ve lost sight of who “us” really is.
I live in Montreal, where many thousands of “us” wear headscarves, kippas, turbans, wigs, beards or crosses. And the country we live in protects our right to do this, respects our choices, allows us to live and work and raise our families and build the culture that makes Quebec what it is.
I want to live in a place where my children think people are just people, no matter what they’re wearing or not wearing. Where they are not afraid because someone looks different. Where they learn (at least) two languages from birth and consider that normal. Where they respect the choices other people make. I chose to live here…I may now have to choose to live somewhere else. And that makes me profoundly sad.
Now I live in a place where intolerance could be enshrined in the very charter that outlawed it in the first place. A place where our leaders can say, with a straight face, that a civil servant in a kippa or a teacher in a turban wields authority and might be intimidating, but an elected official in the same clothing would not be. That size matters…but not really big size (large crosses on mountain tops and in legislatures are OK…). Christmas trees are OK at Christmas parties, but menorahs might not be OK in a daycare for Hannukah?
Seriously? I hope the backlash is enough to wake the PQ out of its pur laine dream soon…because I really like it here.
When I moved to Montreal 11 years ago, I felt immediately at home. Having immigrated from Argentina with my family to Toronto, Montreal felt somehow familiar, like it fit with me and I with it.
Little over a decade later and the feeling if exclusion pervades my daily life. I resent being made to feel like I don’t belong in the city of a province of a country I adopted and that adopted me.
Thanks for writing and sharing this post, Karen. I share your profound sadness.