As the public hearings into the “Charter of Quebec Values” slide from the ridiculous to the disturbing, and from there to the utterly absurd with talk of deporting Mormons and banning zombie walks, let’s pause to remember where this is all coming from. No, it’s not just the PQ looking for the “winning conditions” for a majority government. What we are seeing in Quebec has been festering for some time and has come increasingly out into the open in recent years (thanks, Mario Dumont! Nice to see how you’ve a made a difference in Quebec politics!). It is, above all, a demand for social conformity – don’t bother us by being so openly different from us! It is the fear that if “those people” are not controlled they’ll take over and change society in unwelcome ways. This sort of "fear of the other" is not unique to Quebec but has become quite fashionable here in recent years. The issue of secularism is a red herring: actually, this is very much the mentality that prevailed in Quebec during the Duplessis era, when the Catholic Church reigned supreme.
I say secularism is a red herring, but it’s still a convenient cover for small-minded intolerance. It strangely resembles organized religion in that respect. For some people, it's just another excuse for looking down on and wanting to control other people. Looking back on stuff I've written I came across this thing I wrote in 2010 but never published, largely in reaction to an article in the Montreal Gazette and also to the case of a niquab-wearing woman who was barred access to French classes in what some hailed as a glorious victory for women's rights. Please forgive the slightly stuffy tone of the writing. I often adopt this tone when I get annoyed....
“Funny, for years I believed that I was living in a secular society, since the state does not indoctrinate people in religion or rule by religious precepts, and since people are free to belong to the religion of their choice, or none at all if that is their choice. The fact that same-sex marriage was recently made legal by the federal government despite vocal opposition from religious groups, including attempts by the Catholic Church to compel Catholic politicians to vote against it, would seem to confirm this belief. But no, it turns out that I was wrong, at least according to the increasingly militant 'secularist' movement here in Quebec. Listening to its acolytes, one could be forgiven for thinking that we are still struggling to come out from under the tyrannical rule of religious authorities using the power of the state to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
There is, for example, the tyranny practiced by public sector employees who have the effrontery to identify themselves as belonging to a religion when at work, thus offending atheists. One of their victims is Daniel Baril, former president of the Mouvement laïque québécois. In an article published on March 20 of this year in the Montreal Gazette ('Quebecers rally to put secularism on agenda' (Gazette, March 20, 2010), he complains: "When I go to a government agency, I do not want to receive a non-verbal religious message that I did not solicit". What offensive religious message he thinks is conveyed by a small crucifix worn around the neck, or a turban or hijab is not mentioned. The wearing of a religious sign is generally a way of identifying one's own faith, not a declaration of intent to use the power of the state to convert non-believers. If Mr. Baril cannot stand the thought that the public servant he is dealing with has religious beliefs then I can only hope that this phobia is not shared by all his fellow secularists.
In this same article, another secularist leader speaks of religious practices that 'pollute our society' and 'deny the principle of equality between men and women'. The principle of equality is fine, but surely the practice of it is more important. Earlier this year a Muslim woman was barred from attending French class because she wore a niqab, which covers the face and most of the body. Now, an argument can be made that covering the face inhibits the teaching and learning of language and is overly disruptive in a classroom argument. This was the reason the first school this woman attended used for expelling her. However, after a second school agreed to admit her the Quebec government stepped in and overrode the school's decision. This decision was widely applauded for affirming the 'principle' of equality between the sexes but it denied that equality in practice. Why are Muslim women being punished for their religious practices and being told what not to wear while Muslim men are not? Why are we banishing from the public space women who are making an effort to integrate? Why has it never occurred to those who go on endlessly about the 'principle of equality' that the integration of Muslim women is far more likely to empower them than their isolation?”
