Quebec and the Kirpan
As readers may recall, a few weeks ago a delegation of Sikhs, invited to the Quebec National Assembly to make a presentation to a committee, was turned away by security when they declined to surrender their kirpans. Subsequently the Parti Québécois tabled a motion yesterday respecting kirpans, and today Quebec’s Liberal government has said it will support that motion.
The motion put forward by the PQ is rather more narrow than has been reported in the press, which speaks simply of “a ban”; it reads as follows:
Que l’Assemblée nationale appuie sans réserve la décision prise par sa Direction de la sécurité à l’effet d’interdire le port du kirpan lors des consultations portant sur le projet de loi n°94, Loi établissant les balises encadrant les demandes d’accommodement dans l’Administration gouvernementale et dans certains établissements, appliquant ainsi le principe de neutralité de l’État.
[Google Translate: That the National Assembly fully supports the decision by its Directorate of Security to prohibit the wearing of the kirpan in consultations on Bill 94, An Act establishing the guidelines governing requests for accommodation in the Administration and in some institutions, thus applying the principle of state neutrality.
I don’t know that such a motion, if carried, would proceed any further and become “a law.” If so, it might have to wait a while, given that Quebec’s 1,500 government lawyers have just gone on strike, among whose number are those who work in the National Assembly and help to draft legislation.
If security standards are applied rigidly, they become stupid. Barring a delegation of distinguished senior Sikhs that one has nevertheless invited to come, on the ground that they were predictably wearing their knives, is a stupid application of security standards.
But I remember the Quebec delegation to the Uniform Law Conference for years coming with resolutions about the use of knives, which was a very serious problem in their schools and on their streets that the rest of the country did not share, so some sensitivity is understandable.
The PQ resolution is disingenuous, speaking of the neutrality of the state. That begs the question, in the old-fashioned logical use of that term, i.e. it assumes the conclusion that is supposed to be the subject of the debate (namely the debate about the limits of reasonable accommodation that the Sikhs had been invited to discuss.)
Again, one understands the concerns of particularly a certain generation of Quebeckers about religious influences on the state, given their history. See this article by Jean Paré, former editor of L’Actualité on days not so long gone by.
But one cannot be prisoner to one’s history … and should not be to one’s political advantage, in such delicate matters.
I think the issue with the kirpan and Quebec is more fundamentally political than legal. We know from the jurisprudence and in particular Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys that the Quebec government has an obligation to accomodate religious obligations (and the Kirpan in particular) so I have no doubt that the proposed law would be unconstitutional. The legal issues are pretty clearcut.
The problem is that I think we are seeing a political rejection of the concept of religious accomodation: xenophobia and secularism. The former is the age old fear of \immigrants\ (not that all Sikh’s are immigrants) changing \our\ society. The latter IMHO is a more legitimate political philosophy that holds that \spiritual\ beliefs are not sufficient justification to exempt individuals from otherwise valid rational laws. Its often difficult to discern where Quebec is coming from but I suspect it is a mixture of the two.
The problem for those of us who aren’t sold on the idea of religious accomodation is that it is the law of the land at the moment.
‘ve gotten to your note on the kirpan in Quebec rather belatedly. I will, however, comment on one continuing legal question. I should say that my main expertise is in parliamentary practice and legislative history.
You say you don’t know if such a motion would carry on and become law. It is my understanding that Quebec, its distinct culture notwithstanding, follows the practice of three readings for a bill to pass, much as the federal Parliament and other provincial legislatures. More important, a motion does not begin the process of enacting a bill because a motion that reflects “the sense of the Chamber” is not a bill. This is the obverse of the former Ontario Treasurer who attempted to “introduce” his budget at an auto parts plant. But a government budget is only a budget so far as it starts a process by which a legislature votes funds to the executive. Likewise, a motion commending the security is not a substitute for first reading.
If you don’t get to first base you aren’t likely to pass third.
Mickey P is quite right. A resolution of the Legislature, or the National Assembly, has no binding effect unless some rule of law gives it one – and in this case, it’s just an expression of mood. The National Assembly did something similar when Ontario was undergoing its debate about family arbitration where the parties chose to have the arbitration under Islamic personal law (‘sharia’). The National Assembly chose in its righteousness to deplore any such arbitration – given that Quebec does not enforce any family arbitral awards, under Quebec law or any other. The resolution was simply an official expression of holier-than-thou-ness.
I find Quebec’s rule about family arbitration generally to be paternalistic, but that’s a separate question.