Some friendly advice for Martine Ouellet
Preserving your culture at the expense of someone else’s sows seeds of discontent, Mukhbir Singh says.
Does wearing a turban mean Sikh politicians are not suited for public office? In reference to NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh’s campaign, Bloc Québécois Leader Martine Ouellet has said that the separation of religion and state means that wearing a turban is “promoting one’s religion and promoting religious values.” She added, “when you are promoting religious values, it is always the promotion of one religion, and that is always to the detriment of others.”
Others have suggested that Singh and his “conspicuous religious symbols” may not sit well with Quebec voters.
As a Canadian Sikh and a Quebecer, I’d like to set the record straight. Ouellet, and those that share her views, are sadly misinformed about the significance of the turban and the Sikh articles of faith. As Sikhs, our external identity is an intrinsic part of our faith that we can’t simply leave at home. But far from promoting our faith “to the detriment of others,” the Sikh articles of faith serve as a reminder of values such as service and standing up for the rights of others.
Although our faith originated in Punjab, you’ll find Sikhs are particularly drawn to Canada. The values that we as Canadians pride ourselves upon such as freedom of speech, association and religion are identical to the values we believe in as Sikhs. As a result, Sikhs have now called Canada home for more than a century.
Our faith also teaches us to value equality for everyone, and as Canadians we’re proud of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but there is also a practical aspect to this approach — a glance at global politics reveals that intolerance toward minorities leads to political unrest, social and economic instability, and in the worst cases, even violence.
Aside from the moral issues, marginalizing minorities is an impractical, short-sighted way to govern. And it almost always leads to a nation’s implosion.
But as a minority everywhere we live, including India, Sikhs understand Quebec’s concern for its survival.
Comments about the incompatibility of the turban with public office and authority may sound like bigotry, but we hear an underlying fear due to Quebec’s own dark history with the Catholic Church. And we see an apprehension that if minorities don’t assimilate, then, somehow, they will erode Quebec’s French character.
But as Quebecer and a Sikh, I want to give Ouellet and others who share her views a little friendly advice: You can’t preserve your culture at the expense of someone else’s. That approach sows the seeds of discontent. Ironically, Quebec’s distinct culture endures, in large part, because we as Canadians value and protect minority rights. And most of us recognize that Canada is richer for having accommodated Quebec.
Multiculturalism comes packaged with many other fundamental liberal democratic values. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are also placed in jeopardy when people are pressed to abandon parts of their identities.
We can all agree on the importance of secular government and public institutions. Secularism is important in that no religious group is favoured and the equality of all persons is guaranteed. But while our public sphere must remain religiously neutral, secularism does not require that religious expression be excluded.
By contrast, Ouellet and others seem to be embracing France’s model of laicité — an aggressive form of secularism that is actively antireligious — which has led to significant social problems and the marginalization of minorities.
No group works harder at preserving its culture than Sikhs and we support our fellow citizens in doing the same — including the Québécois. But as Canadians, we also know that you don’t build a nation by marginalizing some of the people in it.