by
Alain Pilote
On September 10, 2013, Pauline Marois, Premier of
the Province of Quebec and leader of the Parti Quebe-
cois, accompanied by Bernard Drainville, the minister
responsible for Democratic Institutions, unveiled her
proposal of a “charter of Quebec values”, which aims
at banning “overt” religious symbols for civil servants,
in order to “safeguard the neutrality of the State.”
This charter states that judges, police officers,
prosecutors, public daycare workers, teachers, or hos-
pital workers — while they are on the job — can not
wear overtly religious objects (Muslim head scarves,
Jewish skullcaps, Christian crosses or medals, etc.)
“Conspicuous” symbols would not be allowed, but
very small symbols (like rings or earrings) would be.
As a member of parliament noted, “Who will deter-
mine if a symbol is conspicuous or not, is too big or
overtly religous or not ? Will there be religious police
officers to check around the necks of civil servants
what is allowed and what isn’t ? Will they have to carry
a tape to measure the sizes of crosses, medals, etc.?”
On November 7, 2013, this proposed charter of val-
ues was tabled at the National Assembly (Quebec Par-
liament) as Bill 60, and was titled the “Charter affirming
the values of state secularism and religious neutrality
and of equality between women and men, and provid-
ing a framework for accommodation requests.” The
September proposal remained practially unchanged,
and even more strict. The text of the bill specifies that
“in the exercise of their functions, personnel members
of public bodies must not wear objects such as head-
gear, clothing, jewelry or other adornments which, by
their conspicuous nature, overtly indicate a religious
affiliation.”
Immediately after its unveiling in September, this
charter has triggered a flood of reactions throughout
the province, including the vast majority of the State
employees who do not see the necessity for such a
ban. Even three former Quebec premiers and leaders
of the Parti Quebecois said that Mrs. Marois was going
too far, and should not ban religious signs. However,
this has not made her back down.
A real blow against this bill came on October 17
when the Quebec Human Rights Commission, led by
Jacques Fremont, a constitutional expert appointed
by the PQ last spring, issued a 27-page report ex-
plaining that the proposed charter was a violation of
the Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
(voted by the Quebec National Assembly in 1975), a
violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Free-
doms (voted by the House of Commons in 1982), and
of course, a violation of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (voted by the United Nations in 1948).
Fremont added that this “charter of values” proposed
by the PQ would not stand up to a legal challenge.
“The courts would rip it to shreds,” he said.
The report explains that “the proposed prohibi-
tion stems not only from a misconception regarding
freedom of religion as protected by the Charter and
by the principles of international human rights law,
but it also misinterprets the neutrality requirement
that must be observed by the state.” For the Com-
mission, this “religious neutrality requirement ap-
plies primarily to government institutions, but not to
public sector employees.”
“Freedom of religion is protected by Quebec’s
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms: Section 3
guarantees fundamental freedoms, including freedom
of conscience and religion, and Section 10 prohibits
discrimination based on religion.
“The state’s institutions must be neutral, not
the individuals. Public service employees, as well as
people using government services, have the right to
freedom of religion and conscience.
“Wearing a symbol of one’s religion does not
mean a person is trying to impose his or her religion to
others or is proselytizing. Wearing a religious symbol
does not prevent an employee from doing his or her
work in a neutral and impartial manner.
The state cannot use religious neutrality
to justify banning a public service employee
from wearing a “conspicuous” religious sym-
bol in the workplace. On the contrary, the
state’s neutrality ensures people the right to
practice their religion. Thus, asking a woman
to take off her hijab when working in the pub-
lic sector contravenes the Charter, as does
asking a civil servant to remove his kippa or his turban.”
The Parti Quebecois is in a minority position in
the Quebec Parliament, and all the opposition parties
have already said they will vote against this bill as it
is now presented. So, since this bill would be rejected
by the courts, and has no chance of becoming law
under its present form, why does Pauline Marois per-
sists with it? It is simply a crass political game to get
votes at the next general election by making Quebec-
ers believe that the PQ actually “stands up” for them
to defend “Quebec’s identity and values.”
Excerpts from the debates in the Quebec Parliament
on November 7, 2013, when Bill 60 was introduced,
clearly shows this political game, with the following
exchange beyween Jean Marc Fournier, parliamentary
leader of the Liberal opposition, and Premier Marois.
Jean Marc Fournier: “This discriminatory dress
code has been called by the Quebec Commission of
Rights the most radicval attack on the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms... In the name of religious neutrality, the
PQ has decided to pass from a society where the cit-
izens are free to practice their faith in a State that pro-
motes or favors no particular religion, to a society in
which the citizens are discriminated because of their
faith, in a State that wants to abolish all religious phe-
nomenon.
“According to the PQ, the neutrality of the State is
so much in peril that individual rights and freedoms
must be abolished. Yet, the Quebec Commission of
Rights wrote: “The Commission... does not report a
single situation in which the wearing of religious sym-
bols by a public sector worker would have threatened
the principle of religious neutrality.”
Pauline Marois replied: “I think you and I must not
be living on the same planet... What we are advocating
is the neutrality of the State... This does not infringe on
the rights of anyone because freedom of speech and
freedom of religious expression will be respected by
all Quebecers, by the government, and by our institu-
tions.”
How can Pauline Marois seriously claim to “re-
spect freedom of religious expression” while pushing
legislation that would see public-sector employees
fired for refusing to remove religious symbols? On
“planet PQ”, anything is possible...
Several commentators have noticed that this de-
bate on Quebec’s secular charter has become a trial
where all religions are accused of being harmful to
society. (Open-line programs, letters to newspapers
and comments on social networks are there to prove
it.) Political pundits accuse the PQ of encouraging and
surfing on a wave of “fear of the stranger”, of an al-
leged “Muslim peril” for Quebec.
This is totally dishonest for the PQ to promote this
fear, for it is a mistake and a danger to demonize Islam,
and to lump all the Muslims together. All Muslims are
not members of Al Qaida! The vast majority of Mus-
lims are peaceful and do not want to resort to violence;
it is only a handful of radicals who have hijacked the
whole of Islam and are using it for their own political
purpose, by interpreting the Koran in a fundamentalist
way, since some of its verses, taken out of context and
wrongly interpreted, might indeed seem to justify the
use of violence against Christians and Jews.
On this issue of Islamic fundamentalism, Pope
Francis wrote in his new Apostolic Exhortation
Evan-
gelii Gaudium
(The Joy of the Gospel): “Faced with
disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our
respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to
avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and
the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every
form of violence.” (n. 253.)
A few line further, talking about religious free-
dom in Western societies, Pope Francis added:
“The
respect due to the agnostic or non-believing minor-
ity should not be arbitrarily imposed in a way that
silences the convictions of the believing majority or
ignores the wealth of religious traditions. In the long
run, this would feed resentment rather than toler-
ance and peace.”
(n. 255.)
Other penetrating observers noticed that it is not
only the Islamic faith that is targeted by this charter
of the PQ government, but all religions in general are
being attacked, including the Roman Catholic Church.
When one hears Minister Drainville say, about day care
centers: “We have decided to protect children who are
more easily influenced and more vulnerable... We do
No to Pauline Marois’ secular charter !
No need to ban religious symbols for civil servants
No to closed secularism that forbids any religion
u
Examples of religious symbols not allowed
in Quebec’s proposed Bill 60
Despite all the opposition to this charter, Quebec
Premier Pauline Marois does not want to back down
We are being told by the Quebec gov-
ernment that a charter of values is neces-
sary to protect the State from the influence
of religion. When will we see a charter of
values to protect the State from the power
of High Finance?
18
MICHAEL October/November/December 2013
MICHAEL October/November/December 2013
www.michaeljournal.org www.michaeljournal.org19