Further to my post Laïcité: Fatima Houda-Pepin dépose son projet de loi | Charte de la laïcité, not too surprising that the PQ government is maintaining their firm line to keep the proposed Charter as it is (while welcoming the dissension within the Liberal Party of Quebec).
«Je respecte la position de Mme Houda-Pepin, mais ce que je dis depuis le départ, c’est que la recommandation de Bouchard-Taylor, c’est un point de départ, ce n’est pas un point d’arrivée. Je pense que Bouchard-Taylor, c’est minimaliste sur les signes religieux», a-t-il [Minister Drainville] expliqué.
Drainville dit non au compromis de Fatima Houda-Pepin | TOMMY CHOUINARD | Politique québécoise.
In other Charter related news, a spirited discussion between Minister Drainville and the Montreal School Board, pointing out some of the contradictions in the Charter in relation to other Quebec laws:
But Mancini responded to Drainville by turning around his questions, asking whether he is aware that Article 37 of the Education Act stipulates schools must respect the freedom of conscience and religion of students.
And the spirit of the act makes it the duty of schools to teach students to respect religious diversity and pluralism.
The government’s Bill 60 proposes to ban the wearing of all religious symbols in the public sector, including the education sector, in the belief the symbols advertise faiths and young minds will be influenced.
It’s the first time in weeks of hearings that the committee has heard this argument.
“This is what we are asking you,” Mancini said. “Which laws must we disobey?”
We don’t want to disobey one or the other, but you are putting us in a position where we don’t know what to do
Montreal school board threatens to fight values charter with ‘all possible resources’ in faceoff with minister
PLQ Couillard, still struggling to define his party’s position, noted how exclusion can foster fundamentalism and extremism:
La charte de la laïcité accroîtra la discrimination à l’emploi dont sont victimes les femmes musulmanes portant un voile. « [Toute politique qui] dit à une femme : “ On ne veut pas que tu sois avec nous. On ne veut pas te voir. Retourne chez toi ” bâtit le sentiment d’exclusion et nourrit les gens qui font de la propagande pour recruter d’autres citoyens dans les rangs des intégristes », a expliqué M. Couillard dans un entretien avec Radio-Canada. La charte de la laïcité est du coup « exactement […] ce dont ils ont besoin ».
La charte alimentera l’intégrisme religieux, craint Philippe Couillard
More on former Supreme Court Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé’s support for the Quebec Values Charter:
But speaking last week at a legislative committee, Justice L’Heureux-Dubé said while freedom of religion is fundamental, the right to wear religious garb is not; it is less important, therefore, than women’s right to equality.
Daniel Weinstock, a philosopher of law at McGill University, said that the “contradictions speak for themselves,” not only in her support for a hierarchy of rights rejected by the court she sat on but in deferring to Quebec legislators. As a judge, she helped “lead the charge to a substantive interpretation of equality rights, taking it away from a purely formal reading. It is a bit of a reverse, to say the least, when all of a sudden her position is that courts should be deferential to legislators.”
Daniel Jutras, McGill’s dean of law, called Ms. L’Heureux-Dubé’s intervention “unacceptable. Putting the weight of a retired Supreme Court justice behind [the ban] is quite problematic. I can’t understand it.” He said her support will have significant impact “not within the legal community but it certainly will be used by the Parti Québécois to legitimate their position that this is not a simple legal issue.”
Former Supreme Court judge’s support buoys PQ’s charter argument
Of course, Louise Arbour, another former Supreme Court judge, opposes it (With the Charter, Quebec risks closing its mind).
