Q&A WITH CHARLES TAYLOR
Philosopher finds CAQ plan ‘appalling’
Charles Taylor, co-author of a report cited by Premier François Legault to justify a partial ban on religious symbols, is speaking out against the plan.
Legault says that as part of his vision for a secular state, he will bring in a law forbidding judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers, prison guards and teachers from wearing symbols such as the Muslim hijab, Jewish kippah and Sikh turban at work.
In its 2008 findings, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on religious accommodation said teachers should not be covered by a ban on religious signs. The commission also said the crucifix should be removed from the National Assembly, an idea Legault has rejected.
Taylor, a McGill University philosopher, spoke with the Montreal Gazette on Friday.
Q What do you think of the CAQ government’s plan?
A Dangerous, appalling, divisive, destructive — choose your epithet. I mean it’s just a terrible mistake we’re moving into. In all societies, when a lot of people come in with unfamiliar cultures, people are nervous and afraid. They’re not exactly sure what they’re afraid of but they are. So you can appeal to them by saying, ‘Well, we’re going to put restrictions on them or stop them.’ And (Legault) in fact is doing both — he’s saying we’re going to cut immigration in general and the especially worrisome people we’re going to put limits on.
But there’s absolutely no reason to do that because we have the evidence in our society that when people get to know each other, all these fears disappear. That’s why (the fears) are much less in evidence in Montreal. Because that’s where immigrants are and people mix together. We’re rather unlike the European situation where sometimes the people who come in have a long history of colonial struggles with the host society like in France. But here that isn’t the case. We have very carefully selected immigrants with skills and soon.
Q What are the fears based on?
A When we were doing the commission, very often you heard a very anguished question: Will they change us? In other words, am I going to be living in a society that I don’t recognize? For generations, people coming from the country to Montreal, which is relatively speaking full of immigrants, felt in a sense: ‘Is it Quebec?’ So it’s perfectly understandable. It’s very wrong to take a moral line on people feeling this. But it’s totally irresponsible of political leadership to play on it because it does create a rift. It destroys the careers of a certain number of very competent, dedicated people who have wanted to be teachers since they were 10 and 12 and suddenly are told they can’t be. It alienates them. The sense of not being accepted very often leads people to build a counter-identity. Which you see in France, among Muslims — ‘We’re not French, we’re Muslims’ — because they feel rejected. It’s very bad for society and it doesn’t do any good for the people that are voting for this (either).
Q Will a secularism law succeed?
A In the end, they’re going to have to give it up, for two reasons. First of all, the lawyers, judges, etc., won’t stand for it and they’ll say this is against both charters, both Quebec and federal. And then they’ll invoke the notwithstanding clause, which is a kind of advertisement to the universe — we just violated our charter. And then people (in other parts of the world will notice) like when we had with the unilingual signage issue and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights condemned it. Also, you have to revote (the notwithstanding clause) every five years.
Another development is that young people are just much more open on this. Which is why the Parti Québécois committed suicide with its Charter (of Values). They lost the millennials who went over to Québec solidaire.
Q But your commission recommended part of this — a ban that would apply to judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers and prison guards.
A Even that I now regret because the understanding in which I agreed to that turns out to be not right. The understanding being that (the ban) would be for (government employees who had coercive authority), that it would have a terrible impact if they were allowed to declare what their religion was. It turns out not to be so, because both with the PQ Charter (of Values) and the CAQ plan, they’re playing with (the issue), not respecting that distinction ( by targeting other employees such as teachers).
Q Some francophones say they don’t recognize Montreal.
A I’ve heard that for several decades. They’ve always felt that when they come to Montreal. (But) we’re not going to stop being Montreal. We all have to get used to each other.
We’re not going to move Montreal out of Quebec. Montreal is here to stay. We have to get along with each other, we have to avoid making life difficult for each other.
Q How do we get past this?
A By calmly reasoning with people. The main thing is you have to hold off from doing something irreparable that really hurts people. In this case, it hurts the immigrants.
It’s unfortunate there’s no quick fix. We had a number of recommendations in the report for more mixing, like schools going away for a week or two weeks — instead of going to Germany or France, go to Rimouski. And the Rimouski kids come here. There are all kinds of things you can do to facilitate and accelerate this kind of contact. But it really takes time.
Q What do you think of Legault’s contention that the crucifix is not a religious symbol?
A It’s ridiculous. That’s completely a religious symbol. I have nothing against heritage and nobody is going to say take the cross off Mount Royal but in the heart of the legislative body, over the head of the Speaker? I wouldn’t really mind; I don’t think it’s a terribly important thing myself, but if at the very same time you’re saying to a lot of people that your dream of being a teacher is gone because your religion is polluted but our religion is heritage, that’s just so insulting and contradictory.
Q What is your answer to Quebecers who ask if society is changing ?
A Of course, we will change. Our children and grandchildren will change even more. But it will be a slight change. The weight of these people in the population (immigrants wearing religious symbols) is so small and they will propose good ideas and we’ll take some of them up. The weight is so small that tremendous, largescale, involuntary, unforeseen change is not going to happen from them. They’re going to change and be like us. Most of the people who came to Quebec from Maghreb want to be like us. We asked people again and again, ‘Why did you come here?’ and two answers always came back. First, freedom. Second answer: I could give an education to my children that I never could have in Algeria, Morocco, etc. That’s the classic immigrant motivation. The people who are rushing to the border of Europe and risking drowning, if you ask them why are you going, why are you risking your lives, they would give the same answer. They really want to become like us.