Council expresses its opposition to Quebec’s Bill 21
Edmonton is officially standing up against Quebec’s controversial religious symbols law by supporting a possible legal challenge.
City council made their position crystal clear during Tuesday’s meeting to support in principle any legal challenge to Quebec’s Bill 21, although many admitted the gesture would be primarily symbolic.
That was enough for Coun. Aaron Paquette, who said governments shouldn’t intervene if the cultural practices don’t hurt anyone.
“A lot of things are legal (but it) doesn’t mean they are good,” he said. “Being Indigenous, my family has definitely been affected and understands what (the impacts) a discriminatory law can have. For a city like Edmonton to say something like this may have absolutely no impact on the law but it does have an impact on how people think about these things.”
Passed in June, the Quebec law bans some public servants from wearing religious symbols such as a hijab, turban, kippah or crucifix. These include judges, police, prosecutors and teachers.
Bill 21 was often brought up during the recent election with party leaders weighing in on whether to intervene. No leader fully committed to the idea.
Coun. Scott Mckeen, who brought the motion forward, said the city heard from Sikh and Muslim communities who shared their concerns about the law.
“I really think there has been a licence, unfortunately, given in recent years to people who would discriminate,” he said. “I think (President Donald Trump) has had a lot to do with that. Intolerance flies in the face of Canadian values. We’re offering support in principle to a legal challenge. People can say big deal, what will it do for the legal challenge? Maybe a little bit more wind at the back of that. More importantly, we’re sending a signal in Edmonton to our people that we do not stand for the kind of legislation that we saw come out of Quebec.”
Mayor Don Iveson disagreed with the city’s position being simply symbolic but argued this was an opportunity for Edmonton to make a strong statement.
“These are fundamental questions of our time about justice and inclusion and rights and freedom and not just tolerance but true embracement of diversity,” Iveson said. “They are not symbolic, they are truly constitutional.”