The government of Quebec is about to pass the so-called religious neutrality act to ban all people working in “public service” from wearing religious symbols other than crosses. Public service includes all government employees, along with all teachers (include public day care workers), all employees of universities (all of which are public), all police and firemen, and anyone else whose employment can be construed as public. The stated reason is that no one in the public service should be seen as advocating any religious belief. The exception for crosses is explained as a non-religious symbol of Quebec history. Yeah, right. The same explanation for the massive crucifix that hangs above the Speaker of the National Assembly.
Do they intend to invoke the nothwithstanding clause? There’s no way that will stand up in courts, especially with the bullshit justification for allowing crosses. That last bit is really infuriating in how self-centered and dishonest it is. It’s using religious symbols to assert dominance over other groups: “The symbol of our group is center-stage, yours isn’t”.
I hope Quebec doesn’t join the UK and US in their toddler tantrums. It might be some meat the CAQ is throwing their supporters who came from the PQ where that sort of thing is popular.
Give more detail, please, on “about to pass”. Is this something that one crackpot legislator has introduced, or something that a majority party unanimously supports and is just going through the paperwork for, or something in between?
In any event, regardless of how close it actually is to passing, I think it’s quite easy to say that this is a very bad law.
The government holds a majority in the legislature. It would be incredible if this isn’t passed, unfortunately.
The notwithstanding clause was, without question, an enormous mistake. They should have at least required a supermajority to invoke it.
The government has a majority and there is no chance it will not pass. Also at least one of the opposition parties will support it and maybe others. It will be very popular in rural Quebec. Yes, it will be passed with the “notwithstanding” clause. The only argument now is over whether it will apply retroactively. For example, McGill has a few professors who regularly wear yarmulkes and at least one who is always dressed in full Chasidic garb. Are they to be fired? A lot of day-care workers are Muslim women who wear hijabs. Are they to lose their jobs?
Correct me please if I am wrong, but I believe that the Canadian parliament can refuse to allow provincial legislation. The lieutenant (pronounced leftenant for some mysterious reason) governor of each province represents the federal government to the provinces and they must proclaim a bill before it becomes law.
Speaking as a Catholic who would have no problem with my government (state or Federal) displaying Christian symbols in government buildings…
What a cowardly cop-out. Of course the cross is a Christian symbol. If all it is is a nod to Quebec’s historical Catholicism, then to hell with it. They’re like the agnostic grandson who can’t bring himself to throw away his deceased grandmother’s rosary beads.
Jesus either rose from the dead or he didn’t.
If he didn’t, then stop the pointless sentimentality of paying homage to a phony belief system.
If he did, then bow down to the King of the Universe and beg for mercy.
Nope. Lieutenant govenors represent the head of state (Queen Elizabeth II) and are allowed to exercise almost all of her powers. They do not act for the federal government.
Interesting. Forgive my ignorance, but does the Queen have any actual political power, in Canada?
Of course, she’s Queen of Canada.
The question becomes one of exercising her power.
Québécois are determined to be small-minded, petty and isolated, aren’t they?
To be fair, there’s a lot of that going around.
You refer to the powers of Disallowance and Reservation. While the federal government technically has this power, it hasn’t been invoked since 1943 and the federal Liberals are extremely unlikely to wade into the middle of this given how important Quebec is to their hopes of reelection.
True, but my own personal recollection of the travails of the Québécois goes back to 1988 when they limited all signs to French. There’s a long history of this in Quebec, is my point.
I knew about the title, but my question is about the powers. What are they?
It’s bizarre that Quebecois, who are a minority in Canada, have so little regard for minority rights in Quebec itself. Forget about the moral issues; as a practical issue, don’t they ever worry that the policies they’re enacting at the provincial level might inspire similar policies at the national level that will be used against them?
No, they never worry about such things, and yes, it’s bizarre. They don’t worry about it because they’re accustomed to being coddled by the rest of Canada and especially by the federal government. So for instance, they have no problem regulating and virtually banning the use of English as they move toward French-only unilingualism even as the feds push bilingualism across the country. They have no problem taking down existing bilingual traffic signs (even in tourist areas), even as other provinces like Ontario put up more bilingual signs (even though everyone in Ontario speaks English).
They are apparently immune to any sense of hypocrisy, a condition of blissful ignorance that also enables them to see no problem with banning the symbols of other religions while permitting and celebrating the crucifixes that they like to festoon themselves with.
The funny thing is that this isn’t the first time they’ve tried this. Last time it was a bill proposed by the Parti Quebecois to do essentially the same thing, and it blew up in their faces.
As I read it, tho, that bit would have banned ALL religious symbols.
You know that’s a complicated question right? The Canadian Constitution is a combination of traditions and conventions that reach back to Magna Carta as well as explicit written portions like the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982. Effectively we’re a constitutional monarchy and she can do what she likes; we’re also a representative democracy and we’d kick her out if she did.
But back to the OP’s view that the Lieutenant Governor would, acting for the Queen, refuse to give royal assent to the bill…yeah that’s not going to happen.
Really, none.
The Queen is the head of state, but there is no real mechanism by which she can change policy. Hell, she can’t really do anything in England; her powers in Canada are even more practically limited.
Any attempt by the Queen to exercise power would simply result in Canada becoming a republic, but she never, ever would, nor will Charles, nor William, nor George, nor George’s heir, unless one of them literally goes insane, and even then someone in London would stop them first.
There are lots of other Christian symbols other than the cross:
These other symbols will all be banned, correct?