Does Quebec’s Charter of Values really pose a threat to religious freedom?
It all depends on what you mean by religious freedom. I have absolutely no interest in defending this ugly initiative, this divisive Charter of Values. At the same time, it is important to clearly identify what is wrong with the charter.
One can make the argument that pure religious freedom does not exist without limitations. Someone who wants to engage in prayer in the middle of the Queensway under the protection of religious freedom would be summarily yanked off the highway, and deservedly so. But I doubt if anyone would consider this an intrusion on religious freedom.
At the present time, this proposed charter might not be an intrusion on religious freedom, but it definitely is an intrusion on people being comfortable in their faith. Someone who wears a turban for religious reasons may not be able to serve as a doctor in a Quebec hospital, but wearing a hockey cap is not a problem. It is clear that the target is perceived religious affirmation in “government institutions.”
One may quibble about whether these so-called values constitute a denial of religious freedom, but it is clear that the comfort level for those whose religious affirmation includes overt religious manifestation is severely diminished, and for no good reason.
Quebec has functioned until now with religious people having no restrictions, and I see no evidence that wearing any religious symbol reduces the quality of one’s work.
The issue is less whether this “Charter” constitutes a threat to religious freedom, and more whether it is a mean-spirited attempt to make overtly religious people feel unwelcome. Quebec may be able to skirt around a constitutional challenge, but it fails miserably on the smell test. This charter smells rotten, for the simple reason that it is rotten.
And one cannot dismiss the distinct possibility that once the rot sinks in, religious freedom becomes a casualty.
The most rose-coloured-glasses spin I have seen on this charter suggests Premier Pauline Marois is courageous for proposing an alternative to the failed experiment of multiculturalism. We are to believe this is bold and progressive.
Having explored the content of the ministry website, I wish I could subscribe to such a positive view. I am, however, left with two impressions, neither flattering.
The first is not a religious one, but more of a familiar “politicians talking out of both sides of their faces” one.
On the one hand, the policy goes on at length about following momentum of religion-neutral public service policy; somehow, this is the next logical step in a logical process. We are soothed with tones of fairness, reason and, above all, ideological principle — that neutrality should be applied consistently across the public service.
Then, the policy goes on to detail all the exceptions where schools, universities and individual municipalities can vary the policy according to their own needs. This just seems sloppy opportunism to me.
The second impression is even less flattering. I had the creepy feeling of plain old racism masquerading as progressive, reasonable and principled policy. The graphics on the website almost made me laugh with its representation of what is acceptable (modest Christian jewelry) and what is not (pretty much anything non-Christian). My first thought was I was looking at a parody. Then, the creepiness sank in.
I was grateful to read of former sovereigntist celebrity Hans Marotte saying he was not afraid of anyone in a head scarf, adding “(their) own identity is not a threat to mine. I know who I am, I know my values, and if somebody is different from me, then I am going to learn from (them).”
More of that respect and openmindedness would be a welcome starting principle for this charter.
John Milton wrote: “I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race.”
He was writing in the 17th century in favour of “unlicensed printing” or, in our terms, in favour of the freedom of the press.
Milton realized that it is in the course of debate and dialogue that our ideas, indeed our very characters, are tested, purified and thereby strengthened.
When I read of the proposed Charter of Values, I cannot help but wonder if the idea of a secular society is so “fugitive and cloistered” that it fears that a liberal democracy will collapse into religious tyranny or theocracy at the mere sight of a daycare worker in a hijab or a turban.
An advantage of the current debate is that it shows that the creed of human rights which we tend to take as self-evident, is one particular cultural phenomenon among many. Who will have sufficient power to set the agenda for the privileging of some set of rights over others?
To declare, as the proposed charter seems to do, that religion is a kind of “lifestyle choice,” favours a particular view of people in society, but certainly not that of the people who will be most affected.
At its best, a liberal democracy is a place for constant negotiation and renegotiation of what is the common good and how we are best to govern ourselves.
An “exercised and breathed” democracy finds ways to welcome the stranger, including the religious stranger, into that conversation and debate.
When I make room for what is significant in the lives of my fellow citizens, I make room not only for them but for other voices that might otherwise go unheard.
Yes, absolutely. It is a clear violation of the original intent of separation of church and state (SOCAS), as set out in the American Bill of Rights.
SOCAS is a concept that, for centuries now, has been widely revered by Canadians, even though our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms has no such statute. It declares that the state shall “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Quebec’s proposed Charter violates both principles as stated in the declaration. First, the Charter establishes secularism as the only belief system accepted and protected by the Quebec government. Now the prophets and champions of secularism are adamant that it maintains a “neutral” position towards religion, but the only difference between secularism and recognized “religion” is the insistence that secularism is not a belief system. It’s a canard that is in bad need of exposing.
Secondly, the charter prohibits the free exercise of religion by restricting expressions of faith, which is exactly what SOCAS was intended to protect.
I have quoted for the American Bill of Rights because at the core of this debate over the Quebec Charter is an Orwellian perversion of the original understanding of SOCAS. I quoted from the American Bill of Rights because of its explicit wording to illustrate this fact.
Promote your belief in no God all you want, but do it on your own dime, and please don’t have the condescending arrogance to restrict the rest of the faith community that disagrees with your opinion. We do not campaign from a perspective that wants “freedom from controversial belief systems.”
In this regard, I think the PQ and their ilk could learn a lot from us when it comes to freedom.
The situation, to quote the Hon. Jason Kenney, minister of multiculturalism, is “Monty Pythonesque.”
Imagine: “Charter Police” outside Quebec Public Service buildings ensuring that religious medallions meet regulation standards, measuring sideburns, determining whether an employee’s beard passes as “nonreligious,” checking that turbans, kadas, kirpans, hijabs, yarmulkes — and don’t forget the little bindis (red dot that Hindu women wear on their foreheads) — are removed on entry. Hai Ram! (Or should I say Sacrebleu!) What next? Censoring profanities?
Using secularism to justify banning religious symbols from public service environments demonstrates a very distorted view of secularism. Especially since the province’s Catholic heritage is largely safe, with the thousands of publicly maintained crosses “grandfathered” from the new rules because they have become purely secular, like Santa Claus.
Secularism is not atheism. It is not a licence to inhibit religious freedoms. Nor does it require that public service employees hide their religious identity. Secularism is about religious neutrality, where all religions are free to flourish because no religion holds power or dominates or colours public policy decisions.
For example, a justice of the peace is hardly secular if he/she refuses to officiate at a gay couple’s marriage, no matter how neutral their clothes. A doctor wearing a turban, hijab or yarmulke, who treats all patients equally, irrespective of their religious affiliations, is completely so.
Quebecers upset by turbans, hijabs, large religious medallions, etc., should get over it. Not only is culturalism akin to racism but also it is too far late to revert to a less-diverse time. Global societies are increasingly becoming multicultural, and whether they approve or not, Quebec, like the rest of Canada, is already a well-established multicultural society. Attempting to create a monoculture in 2013 is a hopeless task anywhere.
I am confident that there is enough sanity in Quebec to end this madness.