Hijab is what Marois really wants to banish

Interesting insights from Charles Taylor, on how the model of laicisme ouverte was a tactical move to find a compromise that should work with the population. A valid call, even if the fundamentals are still questionable:

Sure enough, Taylor conceded in our latest phone conversation that the recommendation was a political compromise, meant as “a prophylactic.”

He revealed: “We did struggle over that for weeks.

“We didn’t have any real concern that wearing a religious symbol would make someone an unreliable official. It was never that we mistrusted the judgment of a kippa-wearing judge.

“Rather, we feared that the idea would run into stiff resistance. We wondered, ‘Is the population ready for this?’

“We looked at it from the point of the accused — would they find it traumatic (to be judged by someone visibly non-Christian)?

“So, we said, ‘Let’s go for this limited recommendation now, and at a later date when the population feels confident enough with diversity, we can loosen the whole thing.’

“We were recommending it as a prophylactic. It was a scaling down, so that it might provide a way out.”

Hijab is what Marois really wants to banish: Siddiqui | Toronto Star.

And Québec solidaire, the small left-wing party, notes that an election is not the best means to have a discussion on the proposed Charter, human rights, and accommodation:

Charte des valeurs – Une question trop complexe pour être un enjeu électoral, croit QS