Asymmetrical secularism
A NEW POLL suggests opinions on religious symbols depend on the religion
“What divides us,” Democratic Institutions Minister Bernard Drainville said when he presented the Parti Québécois government’s proposed Charter of Quebec Values two weeks ago, “is not each other’s religious practices.
“What divides us is the impression of privilege, the impression of inequality, the impression that we are not all equal.”
Yet there is new evidence that where religious accommodations are concerned, it’s not only members of religious minorities who want “privilege” and “inequality.”
This week, Radio-Canada broadcast results of yet another poll in connection with the “values” debate.
As in previous polls, respondents in this one were asked their opinions about the wearing of religious symbols by public employees, which would be prohibited by the PQ charter.
Unlike the previous polls, however, the poll conducted Sept. 1820 by SOM for Radio-Canada did not ask about religious symbols in general. Instead, it asked about individual symbols: the Muslim veil, the Sikh turban, the Christian cross and the Jewish kippah.
Now, there are a couple of problems with this poll.
For one thing, the polling firm itself advised caution in interpreting results for the kippah, the Jewish skullcap, because some respondents may have confused it with the kirpan, the Sikh dagger.
And for another, the questionnaire used the word “veil,” which some respondents might have understood to include facial coverings such as the niqab, in addition to the more common head scarf known as the hijab.
Nevertheless, whether respondents were thinking of the kippah or the kirpan, or the hijab or the niqab, their answers reveal a double standard concerning the wearing of religious symbols by public employees.
The respondents were asked whether they would accept to be treated by a doctor wearing the veil, the turban, the cross or the kippah.
In the case of three of the four symbols, at least a quarter of the respondents said they would “probably” or “certainly” refuse treatment.
But only 10 per cent said they would not accept treatment from a doctor wearing a cross. That is, respondents were more than twice as likely to refuse treatment from a doctor wearing a symbol of a minority religion.
French-speaking respondents were slightly more likely than nonfrancophones to refuse treatment from a doctor wearing a cross. But they were more than twice as likely as non-francophones to refuse treatment from a doctor wearing another symbol.
Respondents were also asked how comfortable they would be sending their children to daycare where educators wore the symbols.
About half would be “a bit” or “very” uncomfortable if it was one of the minority symbols, but less than a quarter if it was the cross.
French-speaking respondents were actually slightly more uncomfortable than non-francophones about the cross, which the polling firm attributed to a commitment to religious neutrality.
But francophones were much more uncomfortable than nonfrancophones about the minority symbols.
Finally, respondents were asked whether a public employee should be fired for refusing to remove a religious symbol — in effect, for defying the PQ’s proposed ban.
A majority was opposed to firing an employee over any of the symbols.
About one out of three respondents, however, said the employee should be fired over one of the three minority symbols, to only about one out of five over the cross.
That is, about one in eight was in favour of firing a Muslim, a Sikh or a Jew for defying the ban, but not a Christian who did the same thing.
So for some Quebecers, the problem is not religious symbols worn by public employees.
It’s symbols of minority religions — and, perhaps, the people who wear them.