I think it’s mainly because of Bill 21. When Legault justifies the bill, and the firing of a perfectly competent teacher who wears a hijab, all in the name of secularism, and yet says that all French-Canadians are Catholic, it sends a message of bigotry. You’re not really a Québécois unless you’re Catholic. That’s why the media pick up on it, in my opinion.
As you’d probably expect, that’s also largely my position on the whole thing. If the local language is X, and you don’t speak X and move there, then you’ll either learn X or feel quite isolated. I say this as someone who’s lived in places where I didn’t speak the local language. But I thought the situation was interesting because “bilingualism” in Canada typically means what place to give the French language. A case like this one forces us to think about the issue differently. Since New Brunswick (and Canada) is bilingual, should the municipality have to offer services in English as soon as anyone asks for it? But if so, that might mean that all municipalities would have to offer services in French, and we all agree that’s not going to happen. But that means (unless English is declared to be “more official” than French) that the newcomers will be left without services in their language.
I’d misremembered the article a little bit, because when I first read it last year, I’d had the impression that the journalist was trying to push a kind of “Canadian” solution to the issue: be nice and don’t cause trouble. “We know” that francophones in New Brunswick also speak English, so why perturb the linguistic peace by denying the newcomers service in English? Let’s be nice and give them what they want (informally of course, so as not to cause any precedent that could justify francophones asking for service in French in anglophone municipalities). But on reading the article again, it does allow the village’s general manager to explain that services in English would be a burden that they just cannot shoulder financially. I do feel that the general manager’s quote, that was first translated as “We can’t allow that” but later corrected to “We can’t afford that”, might have been intended to push a certain narrative about the municipal government’s motives. For what it’s worth, even “We can’t allow that” doesn’t offend me, but I’m not anglophone and I know it would offend some anglophones. Edit: kudos on CBC for at least not stealth-editing the article, I guess.
Is that what you think, or is that what the anglophone Canadian media thinks? Because there are some very weird jumps in that argument, the different parts just don’t flow from one to the other. Even if all French Canadians were Catholic, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t mandate secularism. Remember that French secularism (as for example in the 1905 law), as well as the first wave of secularisation in Quebec in the 1960s, happened to protect the state from influence from the Catholic church. And even in a strong secularism regime, people who practice religions, whether it be Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, or whatever else, aren’t “un-citizenified”. Religious practice is protected (within reasonable bounds), it’s simply specified that some parts of the state apparatus (in the case of bill 21, it’s officers of the state in a position of power over citizens) are expected to show religious neutrality. As for “who is really what”, I’m not sure what to answer to this, since after all I’m not Catholic but definitely consider myself a Quebecer (or Québécois, depending on what you mean by this).
The teacher was not fired.
Having said that, of course it’s bigotry. Bill 21 was designed to, and quite intentionally so, primarily target folks who aren’t, shall we say, pur laine.
He had a Jesuit education which was quite well known.
Quebecois can, of course, be Catholics or other religions and still believe in the separation of church and state. These beliefs may be genuine, or social, or for less generous motives.
If it is true that one is unlikely to be a prominent national leader without broad Quebec support, this may or may not account for attributes listed above.
On the first point, I reached that conclusion by reading his wiki bio:
{Note to mods: extensive quotes from the article, but Wikipedia articles are all copyright-waived.}
On the second point, I agree that inter-generational religious transmission isn’t as strong as it used to be, but I think it’s a useful starting point, at least.
Or vote your constituents’ consciences… Not always the same thing.
David Iftody was the Liberal MP in my riding back in the 90s, he voted against the party on an abortion bill and against his own views in order to represent his constituents. My riding is on the wrong side of history in so very many social issues, but he took the hit and was subsequently dropped by those very same constituents in the next election because the wrong side of history never rewards loyalty and integrity.
First, I wasn’t aware that the Catholic church is make a strong resurgence in Quebec, such that the state needs to protect itself from the Church, the way it did in the 1960s. My understanding is that the state won the Quiet Revolution, as demonstrated by all those beautiful, largely empty, churches.
Second, the difficulty with the “religious neutrality” argument is that Christianity is one of the few religions that doesn’t require any outward displays of faith via symbolism or clothing. Christians are not required to wear a cross. Nuns and priests can just wear simple black clothing, without dog-collars, wimples, cruxifixes or rosaries. Christians can easily comply with the law and are never put in the position of having to choose between their religion and their job.
That’s not the case for other religions. Some observant male Jews believe that they are required to cover their heads and wear a kippah. Some Muslim women believe that they are required to wear a hijab. Male Sikhs are required to wear a turban, a bangle and a small dagger. Those individuals are required, by state action, to choose between their religious beliefs and their jobs.
That means that the secularism law is discriminatory, because even though it may be facially neutral, it has an adverse impact on members of some religions and not on Christians.
And that was the goal of the National Assembly in passing it.
If it says Pierre Trudeau attended mass throughout his life, then I guess that does mean he was Catholic. The fact that he attended Catholic schools, on the other hand, doesn’t necessarily mean anything: I attended what is in fact a private Catholic high school, and that doesn’t make me Catholic. Some of my colleagues at that school were actually Protestant and Muslim.
Well, consider this. Back before the secularisation of the Quebec education system, in the 1960s, many teachers in Quebec schools were Catholic priests and nuns wearing full habits. Then, when secularisation occurred, these teachers were replaced by… no, they weren’t replaced, since they were the ones who knew how to teach and they were doing it well. But they were required to remove their religious clothing. You’ll say they weren’t required to do it by law, but rather that their religious orders asked them to do it in order to show that they complied with the newly secular nature of the school system, and that’s true, but it’s definitely an important part of our secularisation process.
You say that practitioners of some religious traditions believe that they are required to wear particular symbols. This also used to be the case with Catholicism, by the way: my friend tells me her mother, and I guess women in general, had to wear a veil in church as a child. But in this age, and especially with increased focus on equality between men and women, practices like the previous one have in large part disappeared. There is nothing inherent to some religious traditions that cause them to require wearing a symbol at all times, it’s been a requirement of many traditions at times in history, and if it’s not the case with Christianity today it’s probably most likely because the power of Christianity in the Western world has been largely curtailed.
The crux of this disagreement, as far as I can tell, is the following question: is a symbol that shows that the wearer belongs to a particular religious tradition a political (or ideological) symbol, or just an identity symbol that has no political valence? I couldn’t work in a government position with power over the public while wearing a badge that says “Je suis souverainiste” (I tried to find a picture online, but I cannot find any; I know I’ve seen them before though, but I guess we’ll have to go with this), and we all agree that’s perfectly fine. And it doesn’t mean that political position is illegal, or necessarily disapproved of by society, or makes me not a real Quebecer or Canadian. On the other hand, a badge that says “Je suis francophone” is probably fine (not sure about these ones though). Where does a religious symbol fall? Reasonable people may disagree. A burqa, for one, is almost certainly a political symbol. A kippah? Well, maybe it isn’t, but others might argue otherwise. The small dagger worn by male Sikhs? Regardless of whether it’s political or not, it’s still a dagger, and some public places might forbid them based simply on that fact.
For those of you following from Down South, you will see that Canadian Politics consists of:
- French v. English
- Discussions of various Trudeaus
- Lillian Van Der Zalm’s headbands.
Also:
-
Disbelief at the fact 95% of Canadians are non-partisan and most ignore politics
-
Rosemary Barton, Andrew Coyne, Chantal Hebert agreeing that nothing new was said during a government speech
Pardon the goofy diversion, but her husband, Bill, has been, well…interesting, lately.
So they were not, in fact, required by the power of the state to remove their religious garb. But now that such a law disproportionately affects non-Christians, that’s when a law is brought into force. The merest coincidence, I am sure.
Also note that, at that time, Catholic control of the schools was pretty explicitly about maintaining Catholic influence on society.
There’s no way a few Muslims wearing hijab in class can possibly have the same impact on society. Worries about “Sharia Law” being imposed on Canada have no bearing outside right-wing racist paranoia. If we get to the point where there are so many such teachers that they start to think they can begin teaching Islam in the schools, well, we’ll burn that bridge when we get to it.
Right now, I’m more concerned about the clearly prejudicial effects this has on such individuals, particularly recent immigrants. You don’t help someone like a recent Syrian refugee become a good Canadian citizen by immediately demanding they conform to newly imposed, clearly racist in intent, clothing laws.
Van Der Zalm has always been batshit crazy.
What? The homophobic owner of Fantasy Garden World dabbling in Reform Party lameness, peculiar anti-HST stumping and chemtrail awareness, being bat-shit crazy?
(I’m sure I’m missing an accolade or two.)
Yes, this is not surprising. Even back in the day, he thought communists were climbing up his leg, and sitting in the cupboard eating his wife’s jam.
Growing up in the 80s I distinctly remember having the impression that BC politics was bonkers.
As for Bill 21 - it’s very, very French, which is a shame. Quebecers have much better imaginations and examples to look to than France.
From my reading Bill 21 makes the mistake of confusing the idea that religious belief should not drive governmental decisions with people of differing religious beliefs should not be executing government decisions.
Well it doesn’t actually do that, because that would be bigoted. Instead it cloaks the 2nd part in “displays of religious belief”. That those displays sit outside the historical context of Quebec is simply the path of least resistance. Oh and tries to shoehorn “State laicity to be of fundamental importance” into the preamble.
meh
Does seems oddly fixated on burkas though - vey much a creature of 2008.