QS opposes ban on religious symbols
Nadeau-Dubois says discussing hypothetical cases ‘inflames emotions’
QUEBEC The lines have been drawn for Quebec’s latest debate over the issue of religious symbols and state secularism.
On one side, there is the governing Coalition Avenir Québec, which last week tabled Bill 21, taking the hardest line on the issue since the days of the Parti Québécois’s charter of values in 2013.
The difference is the PQ was in a minority government and fell before it could transform its controversial vision into law.
Today, with 75 seats in the National Assembly — and the tacit approval of the Parti Québécois opposition on many elements of the bill — the majority CAQ government has much more latitude, even if that means it has to walk a fine line politically to not appear like a bully.
On Sunday, Premier François Legault took to his Facebook account to make a video pitch for the bill, which he said is moderate and a good match for Quebecers’ values.
On the other side of the spectrum are the Liberals and, as of this weekend, the left-wing Québec solidaire party.
It’s true the Liberals — minus a full-time leader and mired in the dungeon when it comes to nationalist francophone votes — have yet to be particularly vocal in their opposition to Bill 21.
QS has no such angst. On Saturday, after what was a remarkably calm debate, the party surprised observers by opting for no restrictions on religious symbols in the public sector.
In doing so, the party turned its back on its old way of thinking, which was to endorse the solutions proposed in the 2008 Bouchard-Taylor formula, including restrictions for authority figures, such as judges, crown prosecutors, police officers and prison guards.
The QS party brass rapidly described the symbols decision, taken by 300 of its party members at a national council meeting, as groundbreaking, and a great example of how inclusive and open the party is.
“It’s a relief,” Ève Torres, the first veiled candidate to ever run for office in a Quebec election, said after the vote was taken. “QS will be the party which will defend, without compromising, the rights and freedoms of everyone in Quebec.”
“The line was drawn today,” QS co-spokesperson Manon Massé told reporters. “Our position will not allow any more exception to this principle: that state secularism is not individual secularism.
“In Quebec, nobody should lose their job or be impeded in exercising their profession of their choice whether he or she wears a religious symbol.”
But as any politician will tell you, it’s easy to trip on this touchy issue, and QS did.
On the same weekend as opting for no restrictions, the party endorsed a second motion that would, in theory, allow a government worker to show up for duty with their face hidden behind a niqab or a burka, which cover the face.
By Sunday — following media reports about the second motion — QS appeared more shy about taking on the secularism file whole hog and anxious to get on with the rest of its agenda, including pushing the CAQ government into acting on climate change.
In other words, while it’s clear QS will be a formidable foe when Bill 21 goes before a committee of the legislature in the coming weeks, secularism is not the only cause QS is fighting for.
In their closing speeches to delegates, co-spokespersons Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois and Massé barely touched on the secularism issue at all.
They did mention every other cause QS espouses, from increasing the minimum wage to defending taxi drivers affected by the CAQ’s reform plan, to standing up for Indigenous rights.
Nadeau-Dubois touched briefly on the subject of inclusiveness when he said QS is a party that unites people of all stripes, generations, regions and faiths in a quest to make Quebec a country, which is the ultimate QS goal.
“Liberty is the opposite of fear,” he said with a flourish. “And people who are free and strong do not need to exclude (others) to feel proud.”
At a news conference wrapping up the event, Nadeau-Dubois appeared irritated that the media were still asking questions about the face-covering controversy he considers completely hypothetical, since there are no such employees in Quebec’s public sector.
According to the motion adopted, use of such clothing would be restricted and only allowed in terms of specific criteria: the employee is not allowed to try to convert others to their faith, they must act professionally and neutral, and wearing it must not cause a security issue.
Confusion abounded, though. In remarks made to reporters earlier, Mercier MNA Ruba Ghazal said she was at ease with the idea of a government employee taking calls from citizens in a ministry office while wearing a niqab or burka.
“If it allows her to make a living, why not?” Ghazal said, adding in her view a woman should have complete freedom to decide what she wants to do for a living.
Nadeau-Dubois responded by saying his colleague had made an error since the party had decided to not talk about theoretical situations, because it inflames emotions for nothing.
“We say we are not going to analyze case-by-case situations,” Nadeau-Dubois told reporters. “(Ghazal) should not have done this and we won’t either.
“Women who wear a niqab who want to become the rector of the Université du Québec à Montréal do not exist. And from now on, you won’t hear us feed a crisis which does not exist by creating hypothetical and imaginary situations.”
He added: “There are no women wearing niqabs who want to sell bottles of wine at the Société des alcools.”