The 'charter of secularism' obscures what really matters
The important issues are ignored and tensions needlessly aroused
As the Quebec election approaches I find myself, unfortunately, pressured to vote for a candidate and party based on my religious sentiments and my feelings of discrimination against my community, rather than formulating my opinion based on the multitude of challenges -- economic, educational, health-related, corruption-related, and justice issues -- that face Quebec society as a whole. Can you blame me? Maybe you can, but before you issue your verdict, please hear me till the end.
The recommendations of the Bouchard-Taylor commission were supposed to relax tensions between the majority in Quebec and different minorities, and address, once and for all, the question of "accommodation." Yet after all the money that was spent and the effort that was put into the process, most of Bouchard-Taylor's recommendations were not implemented. The door was left wide open for further political games at the expense of more important issues, and to the detriment of Quebec's minorities.
Now, five years later, the Parti Québécois is reopening the issue in an attempt to win more votes at the expense of minority rights. And so those of us who would like to stand together against Law 78, against corruption, and against charging the poor more and letting the rich off easy, are forced to abandon those real battles for the fog of the PQ's "charter of secularism."
From what little we know of it, the goal of the charter is to assert secularism mainly by forbidding public employees from wearing religious symbols on the job. But what are you going to do about people's names? If your last name is Singh, or ends with -berg, or if your first name is Mohamed, will you be forbidden from identifying yourself publicly if you work for the government? Many things will give away your religious or cultural affiliation other than your "symbols."
There is another issue that many advocates of secularism are either ignorant of or choose to ignore: namely, the difference between a religious symbol and a religious obligation. As a Muslim man I can wear a verse of the Qur'an on a chain around my neck; you can call this is a religious symbol, and it is certainly optional for me. But as a Muslim I have to pray five times a day; this is a religious obligation.
For a Muslim woman who believes in the requirement to cover her hair, that covering is a religious obligation. The same applies to Sikh men. Certain attire is believed to be a religious obligation by Orthodox Jews. For those individuals, the way they dress is not a religious symbol; it is a part of practising their religion.
How can the state, in the name of any noble value, force those citizens to choose between following their religion and representing the state? What we should be doing instead is to encourage government employees -- and all of those who deal with the public -- to act professionally while at the same time exposing their cultural identity. This is the way to build real harmony in our society.
Pauline Marois and her Parti Québécois should drop this charter, which will bring nothing but social tensions and discrimination, and instead focus on the real issues that face our society: education, health, corruption and, above all, social justice.
* This article first appeared in the Montreal Gazette
Even their priest have UNholy orders.
Sadly, in your case, the majority rules in elections. And that is going to be a tough thing for you if you put your religion first in Canada. Canada is a post religious country.
And also, you are not serving the state. When you are a government employee you are the state, serving the people. We expect you to work full time with 2 breaks and a short lunch.
Seriously, what is going on in the world these days? The PQ about to win setting us back decades, the GOP down south getting back into the control-you-uterus game... when did the world start turning backwards!
The rest of that paragraph I agree with - it's a really counterproductive approach.
However, I still think it is important to stay clear and honest in our dissent, and not misrepresent the other side's views in doing so: they are quite easy to criticize on their own terms without having to distort them.
So, in the interests of clarity, the intent of the proposed law is to prevent religion from becoming a possible source of bias in government services by outlawing "ostentatious" (i.e. "in your face") religious symbols. The word "ostentatious" is there for a reason. Discreet ones are ok. The underlying idea is that ostentatious symbols are meant to shout, not whisper, one's religious allegiance. A government employee should not be shouting their relligious allegiance to the people they are serving. Similarly, keeping a cross in the National Assembly that has been part of the decor for decades, is seen as respect for the cultural heritage of the province, not shouting one's current religious beliefs, whereas removing it would be ostentatiously rejecting that heritage.
There is plenty to criticize in this view without having to disort it, imo.
I actually agree that in the N.A., it is cultural. There are still some fervent Catholics around for whom it is religious, but they are a small minority. And on the other hand you have the anti-religious fanatics who want to eradicate any trace of any kind of religion from everywhere. As usual, the moderates are drowned out by the fanatics at both extremes.
I am not religious, but I think it important that a state respect those who are: freedom of religion is a right, not freedom from religion. I also believe in respecting everyone's cultural heritage: the Church has had an important role, good and bad, in Quebec, just like the Queen and the British heritage, and I respect both. We shouldn't just throw out the baby with the bath water.
That being said, I think for the benefit of social peace, we should take the cross out and put it somewhere else, and believe the charter will create more difficulties than it will solve.
Will it or not, you live in a largely secular society, with separation of church and state. You chose to live here; deal with the consequences of your choice of location.
And, names do NOT denote religious affiliation. They may indicate your country of origin, but they don't indicate religion. If you have not figured that out yet, maybe you should be more observant of the world around you. Not all men called Christian are Catholic or even religious; the same goes for the other names of other origins.
And, while the notion of hijab is religious, the actual garments that are considered hijab are cultural.