ICYMI: Lisée | Le défroqué de la laïcité

More on laïcité and the Bedford school teachers imposing Islamic indoctrination and government funding of religious schools:

François Legault avait une décision lourde de sens à prendre cette semaine. Son parti allait-il garder le flambeau de la laïcité, dans la foulée de l’adoption il y a cinq ans de la loi sur ce sujet, ou allait-il signifier aux Québécois que sa soif de laïcisation était étanchée et qu’il n’irait pas plus loin ?

L’occasion est belle. Le Québec de 2024 continue à financer une cinquantaine d’écoles primaires et secondaires qui offrent, entre les mathématiques et le français, des cours où la religion — une religion, la bonne, évidemment — est inculquée aux enfants. Les traités internationaux protègent le droit des parents d’envoyer leurs enfants dans une école religieuse. Rien n’oblige cependant les États à les financer. Elles ne peuvent cependant ouvrir, au Québec, que si elles obtiennent une homologation, démontrant qu’elles offrent correctement le curriculum normal, avec des professeurs qualifiés, en plus de leur enseignement religieux. C’est pourquoi des écoles hassidiques à Montréal, ou une école catholique intégriste à Lévis, par exemple, font l’objet d’enquêtes et, parfois, de sanctions.

Dans la foulée du scandale de l’école Bedford, une école publique, donc laïque, qui, pendant sept ans, fut la cible d’entrisme religieux, le Parti québécois a présenté une motion offrant de franchir un nouveau pas dans la sécularisation de la nation : mettre fin aux subventions aux écoles privées religieuses. Que dit le ministère québécois de l’Éducation sur l’ampleur du phénomène ? Rien du tout. Il n’en tient pas le compte. Le dernier relevé crédible fut produit l’an dernier par la journaliste radio-canadienne Laurence Niosi : c’est à hauteur de 60 % que sont financées, selon son décompte, 27 écoles catholiques, 14 écoles juives, 4 écoles musulmanes, 2 écoles protestantes évangéliques, 2 écoles arméniennes et 1 école grecque orthodoxe. Pour un coût de 161 millions de dollars par an.

On savait Québec solidaire partant, depuis sa création, pour cette étape de la laïcisation. Le Parti libéral du Québec, lui, était réticent. Mais il a saisi l’occasion et a déclaré jeudi : « On est rendus là. » Il y aurait du Marwah Rizqy dans cette évolution que je ne serais pas surpris. Restait la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ). Pensez-vous un instant qu’en leur for intérieur, Bernard Drainville et Jean-François Roberge, pour ne nommer qu’eux, souhaitent retarder le groupe ? À l’interne, à la CAQ, une source explique qu’on en a déjà assez sur le dos avec les cas comme ceux de Bedford, qu’on n’a pas un vrai portrait de la situation de ces autres écoles, qu’on ne veut pas ouvrir le débat plus large sur l’école à trois vitesses et que, si elles enseignent correctement le curriculum, pourquoi en vouloir aux écoles religieuses visées par la motion ?…

Source: Lisée | Le défroqué de la laïcité

Le Devoir Éditorial | Agir sur trois fronts à l’école Bedford, Yakabuski: Religion in public schools is roiling Quebec politics once again

Of note:

À la suite de l’épouvantable scandale de l’école primaire Bedford, dans Côte-des-Neiges, affublée de tous les maux, le débat sur la laïcité est reparti de plus belle à l’Assemblée nationale. Avant de conclure qu’un renforcement de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État s’impose, les élus seraient avisés de prendre un pas de recul et de poser un diagnostic lucide sur les dérives qui ont compromis tant le projet pédagogique de cette école que le bien-être des enfants et du personnel.

Les problèmes de l’école Bedford, une école publique, offrent un condensé des dérives du réseau scolaire québécois. Ils envoient aussi un strident signal d’alarme que nous ne pouvons ignorer, puisque quatre autres écoles de la région montréalaise font maintenant l’objet de vérifications de la part du ministère de l’Éducation pour des dérives analogues.

En somme, un clan dominant d’enseignants d’origine maghrébine — opposé à un autre groupe de la même appartenance — a pris sur lui d’adapter ou d’ignorer des pans du programme pédagogique pour lui insuffler des valeurs à mi-chemin entre le conservatisme culturel et le prosélytisme religieux au nom de l’islam. Le rapport ne va pas aussi loin, mais il est compris et analysé comme tel dans l’espace public.

Tout y est : le harcèlement, l’intimidation, la violation de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État, le déni d’assistance et l’humiliation des élèves éprouvant des difficultés d’apprentissage, le refus du français comme langue d’usage, l’iniquité de traitement entre les hommes et les femmes, la démission des enseignants qui ne voulaient pas manger de ce pain-là, l’incurie administrative grâce à laquelle le climat a pourri pendant sept ans, l’incapacité de la direction ou du Centre de services scolaire de Montréal (CSSDM) de venir à bout du problème, les limites de la Loi sur l’instruction publique, la mollesse crasse des instances syndicales, qui n’ont pas su agir dans l’intérêt des enfants, l’incompétence abyssale des enseignants embauchés dans un contexte de pénurie de main-d’oeuvre en éducation qui ne disparaîtra pas de sitôt…

Est-ce vraiment une affaire de laïcité ? La réponse est… complexe. Il y a là en même temps l’expression d’un refus et d’une acceptation du vivre-ensemble : n’oublions pas que le litige oppose des enseignants issus du même creuset. L’école Bedford, c’est plutôt la symbiose parfaite du déni de la laïcité, de la faiblesse dans la gouvernance scolaire et de l’incompétence pédagogique.

Si l’État n’agit pas sur ces trois fronts en simultané, il risque d’instrumentaliser la laïcité pour faire des gains politiques à court terme, en balayant sous le tapis l’impérieuse nécessité d’assainir la gouvernance scolaire et de se doter d’une Loi sur l’instruction publique permettant d’agir sur l’incompétence des enseignants avec plus de célérité. Le rapport d’enquête du ministère de l’Éducation sur l’école Bedford, qui a mené à la suspension du droit d’enseigner de 11 professeurs, est on ne peut plus clair à ce sujet : « aucune conséquence n’est prévue à la [Loi sur l’instruction publique] pour l’enseignant qui ne respecte pas ses obligations ».

Aujourd’hui, le conservatisme musulman est montré du doigt à l’école Bedford. Demain, ce sera le messianisme judaïque ou même le conspirationnisme fantaisiste, pourquoi pas ?

Nous ne pouvons prédire ce que la pénurie de professeurs et les difficultés de recrutement en éducation produiront comme canards boiteux devant la classe. Il y a pour ainsi dire urgence de passer outre la rigidité syndicale et la sacralisation de l’autonomie professionnelle pour faire en sorte que les enseignants ne puissent pas prendre de liberté avec le programme pédagogique, le principe de l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes et l’épanouissement des enfants. Il y a aussi des comptes à demander aux directions d’école et aux centres de services scolaires pour s’assurer du respect de leurs obligations dans des délais acceptables.

C’est à ces conditions que nous pourrons aborder l’enjeu de la laïcité, un élément parmi d’autres de cette poudrière. La cohérence entre l’action et le discours sera la bienvenue. Dans la foulée de cette histoire, le Parti libéral du Québec a révisé sa position historique et se dit maintenant opposé au financement public des écoles à vocation religieuse, au nom de l’équité entre les hommes et les femmes. Selon une analyse faite par La Presse, 11 de ces écoles sont lourdement avantagées par l’État, recevant des subventions de 38 millions de dollars et bénéficiant d’avantages fiscaux directs et indirects totalisant 53 millions.

Le premier ministre François Legault a d’abord rejeté une motion à l’Assemblée nationale sur l’abolition du financement public des écoles privées religieuses. Le lendemain, il s’est dit prêt à en débattre de manière réfléchie. C’est la voie à suivre. La patience, le recul et la contribution de la société civile seront nécessaires pour faire en sorte que la neutralité religieuse et l’imputabilité trouvent leur pleine expression dans le système scolaire québécois.

Source: Éditorial | Agir sur trois fronts à l’école Bedford

Following the terrible scandal of the Bedford primary school, in Côte-des-Neiges, adorned with all evils, the debate on secularism has started again in the National Assembly. Before concluding that a strengthening of the Law on the Secularism of the State is necessary, elected officials would be advised to take a step back and make a lucid diagnosis of the excesses that have compromised both the pedagogical project of this school and the well-being of children and staff.

The problems of Bedford School, a public school, offer a summary of the excesses of the Quebec school network. They are also sending a shrill alarm that we cannot ignore, since four other schools in the Montreal region are now being checked by the Ministry of Education for similar drifts.

In short, a dominant clan of teachers of North African origin – opposed to another group of the same membership – has taken it upon himself to adapt or ignore parts of the pedagogical program to instill values halfway between cultural conservatism and religious proselytism in the name of Islam. The report does not go that far, but it is understood and analyzed as such in public space.

Everything is there: harassment, intimidation, the violation of the Law on the secularism of the State, the denial of assistance and the humiliation of students experiencing learning difficulties, the refusal of French as a language of use, the inequality of treatment between men and women, the resignation of teachers who did not want to eat this bread, the administrative negligence thanks to which the climate has rotten for seven years, the inability of the management or the Montreal School Service Center (CSSDM) to overcome the problem, the limits of the Public Education Act, the gross softness of the union bodies, who did not know how to act in the interests of children, abysmal incompetence Of teachers hired in a context of labor shortage in education that will not disappear anytime soon…

Is it really a matter of secularism? The answer is… complex. At the same time, there is the expression of a refusal and acceptance of living together: let’s not forget that the dispute opposes teachers from the same crucible. The Bedford school is rather the perfect symbiosis of the denial of secularism, weakness in school governance and pedagogical incompetence.

If the State does not act on these three fronts simultaneously, it risks instrumentalizing secularism to make short-term political gains, by sweeping under the carpet the imperative need to clean up school governance and to have a law on public education to act on the incompetence of teachers more quickly. The investigation report of the Ministry of Education into the Bedford School, which led to the suspension of the right to teach of 11 teachers, could not be clear on this subject: “no consequences are foreseen in the [Public Education Act] for the teacher who does not respect his obligations”.

Today, Muslim conservatism is pointed out at the Bedford School. Tomorrow, it will be Jewish messianism or even fanciful conspiracy, why not?

We cannot predict what the shortage of teachers and the difficulties in recruiting in education will produce like lame ducks in front of the classroom. It is, so to speak, urgent to go beyond union rigidity and the sacralization of professional autonomy to ensure that teachers cannot take freedom with the pedagogical program, the principle of equality between men and women and the development of children. There are also accountability for school principals and school service centres to ensure that their obligations are met within an acceptable time frame.

It is under these conditions that we will be able to address the issue of secularism, one element among others of this powder keg. Consistency between action and speech will be welcome. In the wake of this story, the Quebec Liberal Party has revised its historical position and is now opposed to public funding for religious schools, in the name of equity between men and women. According to an analysis made by La Presse, 11 of these schools are heavily advantaged by the state, receiving subsidies of 38 million dollars and benefiting from direct and indirect tax benefits totaling 53 million.

Prime Minister François Legault first rejected a motion in the National Assembly on the abolition of public funding for private religious schools. The next day, he said he was ready to discuss it thoughtfully. This is the way to go. Patience, hindsight and the contribution of civil society will be necessary to ensure that religious neutrality and accountability find their full expression in the Quebec school system.

And for background on the controversies, see Yakabuski below:

…Not surprisingly, Mr. Legault and PQ Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon have been one-upping each other in recent days in their defence of Quebec’s secularist values. After all, l’affaire Bedford also feeds into concerns, stoked by both leaders, that immigration is threatening Quebec’s identity.

“There is a specific problem in our schools, and it involves religious and ideological infiltration. And in the case of École Bedford, it has to do with Islamist infiltration,” Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon declared. “The number of schools where 75 per cent of students were not born in Quebec is quite high in Montreal. We should study how to achieve more mixing of students to avoid the formation of microcosms.”

Mr. Drainville, a former PQ cabinet minister best known for tabling a charter of Quebec values in 2013, is now on the receiving end of PQ attacks as he seeks to come up with a political response to the École Bedford controversy. Mr. Drainville’s charter served as the inspiration for the CAQ’s Bill 21.

Mr. Plamondon is now calling for an end to Quebec’s long-standing system of subsidizing religious private schools, and is promising a four-year moratorium on “economic” immigration if the PQ wins the next election, set for 2026.

For Mr. Legault, the temptation to seize on the École Bedford case to rebuild his own political capital may be too great to resist. Another battle over religion in public schools might suit him just fine.

Source: Yakabuski: Religion in public schools is roiling Quebec politics once again

Study: The Sociodemographic Diversity of the Black Populations in Canada

Another good study by StatsCan, highlighting their changed demographics and increased diversity.

Black Peoples represent a growing proportion of the racialized populations in Canada and their sociodemographic profiles have evolved over the last 25 years. The diversity of these populations has been influenced by the pre-Confederation transatlantic settlement of Black peoples in Canada and migration flows to Canada from the Caribbean and Africa, starting in the 1960s. Black populations in Canada differ in terms of their histories, ethnocultural origins, places of birth, mother tongues, and religious affiliations.

A new analytical portrait released today examines the sociodemographic, linguistic, ethnocultural and religious composition of the Black populations in Canada and focuses on three diasporic communities: the Canadian-born, the African-born and the Caribbean-born.

Source: Study: The Sociodemographic Diversity of the Black Populations in Canada

Chris Selley: Latest outrages over Muslims give a preview of Quebec’s next referendum

Sigh:

…One might ask him the same about all manner of other religious rites parents impose upon their children, and one might even get a consistent answer. Quebec feminist icon Louise Mailloux once equated baptism and circumcision with rape. When Mailloux ran for the PQ in 2014, then leader Pauline Marois said she “respect(ed) the fact that she has that point of view.”

St-Pierre Plamondon complained, too, about a sign welcoming people to Montreal’s City Hall that features a woman wearing the hijab. “Clearly the issue of religious invasion of public space does not stop at Bedford School,” he wrote.

So, yet again, the goalposts have shifted. The old deal was if you speak French and integrate into society, you’re welcome to practice any religion you like. The more recent deal, under 2019’s Bill 21, is that if you want to wield state power for a living — as a police officer, Crown prosecutor, prison guard or teacher — then you also have to remove any religious symbols while you’re on the job.

Now the mere presence of a hijab on a little girl in a library, or anywhere in public, is problematic in Quebec.

Those who’ve always believed Bill 21 wasn’t punitive enough, including St-Pierre Plamondon, have concluded that Bill 21 must be toughened in response to the scandal at the Bedford elementary school. And it all could have been avoided if the school board had just done its bloody job.

Expect a third referendum to boil down to this: linguistic and religious freedom versus restrictions thereof. That can’t not be ugly — and it won’t work for the Yes side. The referendum would fail, and Canada would still include an even-more-divided Quebec that’s even more out of step with the rest of Canada’s concepts of linguistic and religious freedom.

Source: Chris Selley: Latest outrages over Muslims give a preview of Quebec’s next referendum

Representation, strategy or both? Sask. election sees increase in racialized immigrant candidates

Of note:

Saskatchewan’s 2024 provincial election features an increase of racialized immigrant candidates, which an expert says makes strategic sense.

In the 2020 provincial elections, the NDP ran many racialized immigrant candidates in Saskatoon and Regina.

This time the Sask. Party has 13 such candidates to the NDP’s three. Those numbers don’t include Indigenous candidates on either side; only candidates who immigrated to Canada at some point in their life.

Why so few for the NDP?

Daniel Westlake, assistant professor in the department of political studies at University of Saskatchewan, said as Saskatchewan becomes more diverse, there’s more pressure on the parties to nominate a more diverse slate of candidates.

“Sask. Party doesn’t surprise me, but I am surprised not to see the NDP with more ethnic, racialized minority candidates,” he said. “In large part because the NDP has been quite proactive in a lot of other provinces at ensuring they’ve recruited a diverse slate.”

Source: Representation, strategy or both? Sask. election sees increase in racialized immigrant candidates

Paul: Here Is the Missing Context in Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “The Message”

Of note:

…Herein lies the most dispiriting aspect of settler colonialist theory in practice. Activists and institutions can voice ever louder and longer land acknowledgments, but no one is seriously proposing returning the United States to Native Americans. Similarly, if “From the river to the sea” is taken literally, where does that leave Israeli Jews, many of whom were exiled not only from Europe and Russia, but also from surrounding Muslim states? The ideology of settler colonialism offers little beyond a hopeless impasse, that “history is evil and deserves to be repealed” or what Kirsch calls a “longing for redemptive destruction.”

In their mutual resistance to an end game, an ironic parallel emerges between the “free Palestine” movement and Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which has declined to offer a viable plan for how the current conflict ends. It may be that neither side can find a realistic solution that can claim pure justice. What remains, in its absence, are vengeance and despair.

Source: Paul: Here Is the Missing Context in Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “The Message”

    Harry Rakowski: Increasing diversity in medicine is important. TMU is doing it the wrong way

    Thoughtful critique and discussion of options:

    …TMU wrongly thinks it will level the playing field for students from low-income families. But it does not yet have the funded scholarships for students in need that other universities have. The University of Toronto has the philosophy of helping students find resources. Its admissions policy looks for the best and the brightest yet tries to increase diversity through special streams and increased financial support. It does this without sacrificing quality. It also rewards commitment to advocacy as expressed through community service, leadership skills and academic productivity including publications. TMU doesn’t appear to care much for any of these important qualities.

    What do we need in a medical school?

    We need effective strategies to improve health outcomes by dealing with unmet needs, and increasing efficiency and innovation of care delivery.  Our current health-care system usually doesn’t deliver on availability and also doesn’t adequately address mental health issues and the need for greater prevention of disease. We lack innovative strategies to improve access and to reduce disease burden and its costly care. We need to modernize the medical curriculum to refocus on these needs and incorporate innovations in learning methods and the use of AI to guide decision-making…

    Source: Harry Rakowski: Increasing diversity in medicine is important. TMU is doing it the wrong way

    In Sweden, the far right is waging open war on the Swedish Committee for Combating Antisemitism

    Of note:

    The strategy is now well-honed. Whenever the Sweden Democrats (SD) – a far-right party and ally of the governmental right – are criticized for their ideology, hateful comments made by their elected representatives and members, or their anonymous social media accounts, they claim to be the victim of a conspiracy hatched by the left. Since October 16, the Swedish Committee for Combating Antisemitism has been in its sights.

    Founded in 1983, this independent, recognized body has long annoyed the Sweden Democrats. By systematically recalling the party’s history, which stems from the neo-Nazi movement, as well as the regular abuses of its leaders, the committee contradicts the official discourse of the SDs, a party that believes it should be cleared of any suspicion of anti-Semitism owing to its unwavering support for Israel.

    ‘Clear zero tolerance against racism’

    Visibly annoyed that the committee’s criticisms were raised again in a televised debate on October 13, party leader Jimmie Åkesson and four of his lieutenants signed an op-ed three days later in the tabloid Aftonbladet. In it, they denounced “serious, ill-supported accusations which appear to be based on misinterpretations and pure inaccuracies.”

    Admitting the problematic history of their party – “there have been individuals with dubious opinions and links to extremist organizations” – they assured that they have been carrying out “systematic and targeted work to get rid of this type of problem for at least 20 years” with “a clear zero tolerance against racism and extremism.”

    The next day, the committee’s president, Ulrika Knutson, responded in the pages of Aftonbladet. According to Knutson, the party’s attempts to present itself as “a model in the fight against Jew hatred lack credibility.” She accused the SDs of instrumentalizing anti-Semitism: They “strongly oppose it when the issue can be used to attack political opponents and minorities,” but are “much more lenient when it comes to statements within their own ranks,” she said.

    Methodically, Knutson proved her point, going back over the statements made by four of the five signatories to the op-ed. Richard Jomshof, president of Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, said in 2015 that Swedish Jews were not a problem “because the Jewish group is so small.” Björn Söder, former vice president of Parliament, doubted in 2014 that Jews could become Swedes and in 2019 took up a conspiracy theory claiming that Hungarian-born American billionaire George Soros was “the one pulling [the] strings” of the European Union…

    Source: In Sweden, the far right is waging open war on the Swedish Committee for Combating Antisemitism

    Documentary about Proud Boys founder reminds Canadians of our role in stoking American extremism – and our denial about it

    Great line:

    ….Maybe it’s time to put aside denial and tackle the unfunny reality that, to expand upon the late professor Harold Innis’s claim, Canadians are hewers of wood, drawers of water and sowers of hate.

    Source: Documentary about Proud Boys founder reminds Canadians of our role in stoking American extremism – and our denial about it

    Dejean | La laïcité, «couteau suisse» du vivre ensemble

    Note of caution on over-use of laïcité to justify measures rather than a more global and balanced approach beyond religious affiliation:

    Si vous êtes adepte du camping, vous avez certainement déjà tenu entre vos mains le célèbre « couteau suisse » de couleur rouge de la marque Victorinox. Une compote à manger, le couteau dispose d’une cuiller ; une vis à resserrer, c’est un tournevis qui est révélé ; une bouteille à déboucher, un tire-bouchon est votre allié. Ces temps-ci, la laïcité semble être à notre démocratie ce que le couteau suisse est au camping : un outil que l’on dégaine en toute situation, confiant dans sa fiabilité et ses possibilités. Faciliter l’intégration des nouveaux arrivants : laïcité ; apaiser les relations interculturelles : laïcité encore ; mettre fin à des pratiques franchement douteuses dans une école : laïcité toujours.

    On pourrait se réjouir de la souplesse et de l’élasticité de cette notion, en passe de devenir une valeur cardinale : après tout, si elle est capable de résoudre bien des problèmes épineux du moment, qui s’en plaindrait ? Malgré tout, on est en droit de se demander si, à force de trop charger la barque, elle ne va pas finir par prendre l’eau. Alors que l’intuition première de la laïcité fut parfaitement résumée par Victor Hugo dans une formule aujourd’hui fameuse, « l’Église chez elle et l’État chez lui », on constate que son champ d’application ne cesse de s’étendre, non pas selon des raisons bien pesées, mais davantage en fonction des polémiques de l’heure.

    Voyez les événements qui se sont déroulés dans cette école de Côte-des-Neiges : les nombreuses chroniques qui leur furent consacrées avaient en commun d’en faire fondamentalement un problème de laïcité. C’était une évidence qui ne souffrait aucune discussion. Ainsi, dans les colonnes du Devoir, Normand Baillargeon achevait sa plus récente chronique en une formule sibylline : « Un premier geste à poser en ce sens est de renforcer et d’étendre la laïcité. Et de l’appliquer partout. » Qu’est-ce que le philosophe entend par « étendre » et « appliquer partout » la laïcité ? Difficile de le dire.

    En effet, la laïcité est désormais une sorte de fétiche que l’on tire de son sac, sans vraiment se questionner quant aux objectifs visés et à la nature des problèmes à résoudre. Le même jour, mais dans un journal concurrent, Joseph Facal se montrait encore plus explicite : « Comparons la laïcité à une longue marche. La loi 21 fut un premier pas timide. » On se demande jusqu’où va nous mener cette longue marche. Là encore, le chroniqueur n’apporte aucun élément concret.

    Les deux chroniques — mais j’aurais pu en choisir d’autres — ont donc en commun de « cadrer » les événements autour de la variable religieuse, alors même qu’elle n’est qu’une variable parmi d’autres qui, sans être occultée, doit pourtant être remise à la place qui lui revient. À lire le rapport fouillé rendu public par le ministère de l’Éducation, il apparaît que bien des problèmes sont avant tout liés à des manquements institutionnels et que des interventions en temps et en heure des autorités compétentes auraient pu faire retomber la pression. La question est donc la suivante : renforcer l’arsenal législatif en matière de laïcité permettrait-il dans le futur d’empêcher de telles dérives ? Rien n’est moins sûr. Et si c’est le cas, cela doit être démontré avec rigueur, et non affirmé de façon péremptoire.

    Alors, pourquoi autant de textes appellent-ils à aller plus loin dans l’encadrement des manifestations religieuses ? Sans doute y a-t-il une part d’opportunisme politique chez des personnes qui, depuis l’adoption de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État, regrettent que cette dernière n’aille pas assez loin, et exploitent l’actualité : ce furent des prières dans un parc ou des rues hier, ce sont aujourd’hui les agissements condamnables d’une petite clique d’enseignants.

    Mais soyons vigilants, respecter la laïcité, c’est aussi ne pas la brandir à tout bout de champ, la transformant peu à peu en une sorte de « couteau suisse » du vivre-ensemble. Il est donc nécessaire qu’elle demeure tout simplement un principe régulateur dans les relations entre l’État et les groupes religieux, et non un étendard identitaire qui tirerait sa puissance non pas tant de son contenu, mais de sa simple évocation devenue quasi sacrée.

    Frédéric Dejean L’auteur est professeur au département de sciences des religions de l’Université du Québec à Montréal.

    Source: Libre opinion | La laïcité, «couteau suisse» du vivre ensemble

    If you are a fan of camping, you have certainly already held the famous red “Swiss army knife” from the Victorinox brand in your hands. A compote to eat, the knife has a spoon; a screw to tighten, it is a screwdriver that is revealed; a bottle to unclog, a corkscrew is your ally. These days, secularism seems to be to our democracy what the Swiss army knife is to camping: a tool that is drawn in any situation, confident in its reliability and possibilities. Facilitate the integration of newcomers: secularism; soothe intercultural relations: secularism again; put an end to frankly dubious practices in a school: secularism always.

    We could rejoice in the flexibility and elasticity of this notion, which is about to become a cardinal value: after all, if it is able to solve many of the thorny problems of the moment, who would complain about it? Despite everything, we are entitled to ask ourselves if, by dint of loading the boat too much, it will not end up taking the water. While the primary intuition of secularism was perfectly summarized by Victor Hugo in a now famous formula, “the Church at home and the State at home”, we see that its scope of application continues to expand, not according to well-weighted reasons, but more according to the polemics of the hour.

    See the events that took place in this school of Côte-des-Neiges: the many chronicles that were devoted to them had in common to make it fundamentally a problem of secularism. It was obvious that there was no discussion. Thus, in the columns of the Devoir, Normand Baillargeon completed his most recent chronicle in a sibylline formula: “A first gesture to be made in this sense is to strengthen and extend secularism. And to apply it everywhere. “What does the philosopher mean by “extend” and “apply everywhere” secularism? Hard to say.

    Indeed, secularism is now a kind of fetish that you get out of your bag, without really questioning the objectives pursued and the nature of the problems to be solved. On the same day, but in a competing newspaper, Joseph Facal was even more explicit: “Let’s compare secularism to a long march. Law 21 was a timid first step. “We wonder how far this long march will take us. Again, the columnist does not bring any concrete elements.

    The two chronicles – but I could have chosen others – therefore have in common to “frame” the events around the religious variable, even though it is only one variable among others which, without being hidden, must nevertheless be put back in its rightful place. Reading the researched report made public by the Ministry of Education, it appears that many problems are primarily related to institutional shortcomings and that timely interventions by the competent authorities could have reduced the pressure. The question is therefore: would strengthening the legislative arsenal of secularism make it possible in the future to prevent such excesses? Nothing is less certain. And if this is the case, it must be demonstrated rigorously, and not affirmed in a peremptory way.

    So, why do so many texts call for further management of religious events? No doubt there is a share of political opportunism among people who, since the adoption of the Law on Secularism of the State, regret that it does not go far enough, and exploit the news: it was prayers in a park or streets yesterday, it is today the reprehensible actions of a small clique of teachers.

    But let’s be vigilant, respecting secularism also means not brandishing it at every turn, gradually transforming it into a kind of “Swiss army knife” of living together. It is therefore necessary that it remains simply a regulatory principle in relations between the State and religious groups, and not an identity banner that would draw its power not so much from its content, but from its simple evocation that has become almost sacred.