Working site on citizenship and multiculturalism issues.
2013/09/20 Leave a comment
Not much of interest today.
More opposition to the proposed Charter, this time from the Catholic bishops:
Quebec secular charter opposed by Catholic bishops – Montreal – CBC News.
Une charte inutile, disent les évêques
And the typical government technique of shutting down dissenting voices by appointing more “friends” to the board:
2013/09/19 2 Comments
John Ibbitson of The Globe on my book, Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism. Excellent summary.
As to his suspicion that I was more comfortable with the old ways, initially yes, but my perspective changed as I thought through the issues, and broadening multiculturalism to include all groups, not just mainstream/visible minority relations, and focusing on citizenship integrity (knowledge, language, residency) were all policy changes that I support generally. Implementation and some of the details is another matter as he points out.
As this is behind the insider pay wall, full text below:
Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias is a case study by Andrew Griffith, who spent four years as Director General for Multiculturalism under Mr. Kenney. He chronicles the conflict between public servants steeped in consensus on how citizenship and multiculturalism programs should be run, and a minister who was determined to transform both the programs and the assumptions on which they were based.
“In many cases, officials had to work through the Kubler-Ross states of grief and loss – denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance – in dealing with the traumatic changes to their role,” Mr. Griffith writes.
Officials relied on surveys and reports to shape policy; Mr. Kenney relied on anecdotal evidence. Officials followed procedures for recommending grants and contributions to non-governmental organizations. Mr. Kenney vetoed most of them.
At root, bureaucrats embraced a set of assumptions laid down in the days of Pierre Trudeau and maintained by every Conservative and Liberal government that followed: Multiculturalism programs should foster mutual tolerance among cultural communities. Citizenship should be easy to acquire, and citizenship classes and programs should emphasize the federal government’s contribution to peacekeeping, the United Nations and expanding civil liberties at home and abroad.
The Harper government saw things differently. As Minister of State for Multiculturalism, and then as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. Kenney preferred the word “plurality” to “multiculturalism.” Instead of an emphasis on cross-cultural understanding, he wanted to promote the integration of new Canadians into a socially cohesive society. (“Exactly!” Quebec Premier Pauline Marois might respond.)
Anti-racism programs should focus less on oppression by the majority toward minorities and more on conflicts within and between minority groups, he believed. There should be more outreach to religious groups within each community and greater attention paid to the concerns of the Jewish community.
Citizenship should be harder to acquire, language requirements should be stricter, and new Canadians should hear less about peacekeeping and gay marriage and more about Canada’s military past and the importance of the Queen.
Bureaucrats would produce plans and priorities based on evidence-based research of key concerns within different cultural communities. Nonsense, Mr. Kenney would retort; I talk to these people and that’s not what they’re saying.
Between 2007 and 2011, the Minister delivered 273 speeches and statements: 37 concerned Canadian Jews; Chinese Canadians were the target of 30 and Indo-Canadians of 22. The other seven in the top 10 included Black Canadians, Christians, Muslims, Asian Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians, American Canadians and Ismali Muslims. Mr. Kenney believed he had his finger on the pulse of immigrant communities.
To their surprise, when public officials convened focus groups to test Mr. Kenney’s assertions, they often found that those interviewed reflected the minister’s priorities more than their own research had indicated.
In the best Yes, Minister tradition, officials also found that they could secure Mr. Kenney’s acceptance of a proposal more easily if it was larded with quotes from the Minister’s speeches. Over time, the bureaucrats found ways to satisfy the new boss’s demands while also sliding in a few of their own priorities.
Mr. Griffith’s conclusion is a surprising admission for a former public servant: “All of us, including public servants, have our biases and prejudices, which influence our evidence base, networks, and advice,” he writes. “…Public servants did not have the complete picture and were often too disconnected from the realities on the ground to understand the limitations of their analysis and advice.”
That does not mean that Mr. Kenney in particular or the Harper government in general were without blame. Mr. Griffith’s decries the cutbacks that have degraded the bureaucracy’s ability to create and test policy, the rush to decision and implementation and the mistakes that resulted. And although the language and the judgments are carefully balanced, one suspects that Mr. Griffith still believes the old ways and assumptions were better than the new Conservative ones.
That said, he predicts that because of Mr. Kenney’s reforms, “multiculturalism will, over time, become closer to the original Reform Party objective … of abolishing multiculturalism and strengthening a strong common narrative of citizenship.”
Unless, of course, the Conservatives are defeated in the next election and the universe goes back to unfolding as it should.
2013/09/15 Leave a comment
Always nice to have Chantal Hébert’s analysis, as she steps back from the day-to-day chatter and puts it in context. And I think her analysis is correct; while the motives for the Charte are suspect, the reaction within Quebec (and among the federal parties) has been encouraging. Favourite quote:
Common sense suggests that a society that is perpetually consumed by polarizing issues will pay a price. But sweeping them under the rug may take an even higher toll on the democratic fabric of a society — even when that rug is the plush one of the Canadian court system.
Values charter sparks fierce but worthwhile debate: Hébert | Toronto Star.
2013/09/14 Leave a comment
Starting with some political analysis on how this is playing out on the national and provincial stage. Some good insights on the leadership styles – strengths and weakness – of both federal leaders in Quebec. My own take is that while both ended up in the same place, first mover advantage Trudeau.
On PQ charter, Trudeau and Mulcair take different paths to condemnation – The Globe and Mail.
John Ibbitson of The Globe notes the political challenges and calculations for the government, and why they have hewed to a more cautious approach while being clear on their fundamental opposition:
Can Tories put the heat on Quebec over its secular charter without getting burned?
Andrew Coyne argues that the PQ may have over-reached, and may have as much support in the end as it counted on. And bang on implications and implementation:
But not to worry, the minister responsible, Bernard Drainville, assures us: “It will be done humanely.” But of course. They will not be told to get out in a cruel way, but with care, compassion, or what the minister calls “good old common sense.” It will simply be made clear to these people, as kindly as the occasion permits, that, notwithstanding their years of blameless service, their continued employment is incompatible with Quebec’s common values — that their insistence on wearing the yarmulke or the turban, in accordance with the deepest teachings of their faith, has become a source of “tension” and “division,” and that for that reason they will have to find other work.
Far from certain Quebecers will side with PQ on values charter
Tabatha Southey does a funny yet serious take on the approach, citing her mother, following hair loss due to chemo, reached out to the Muslim Canadian community for help in wearing a scarf elegantly.
The Quebec charter: Maman, qu’est-ce qu’un turban?
And Maria Mourani, former Bloc MP, who left the party and questions her faith in sovereignty given the divisiveness of the Charte and the implications for her vision of an open, inclusive and independent Quebec. Her action, and criticism of other indépendentistes like her of the Charte, may help Quebec get past the identity politics. One can aim for rural Quebec; one can’t ignore Montréal.
Mourani remet en question sa foi en la souveraineté
And a good summary in The Globe about Quebec’s francophone press reaction, largely negative:
What Quebec’s francophone media thinks of the secular charter
Lastly, some general opinion pieces. Starting with Conrad Black reminding us of the role the Catholic Church played for most of Quebec’s history in preserving Quebec’s francophone culture and society (he glosses over the less savoury aspects):
Spurning Quebec’s proud Catholic roots
And a couple of opinion pieces (Brian Lee Crowley, André Schutten) that blur the lines between what people wear and performing their job. It is one thing to express one’s faith; it is another thing to expect that one’s duties on the job should accommodate those beliefs.
As public servants, we have an obligation to serve all citizens, and provide the required services of the government. We cannot pick and choose; we can likely however find alternative work within government without such matter of conscience issues. And if we can’t, we should work elsewhere.
2013/09/14 Leave a comment
Valid point. What criteria should Canada use to decide which speakers to allow into the country and which not?
The Canadian government did not allow George Galloway in but has allowed other controversial speakers like Ann Coulter in. While Geller and Spencer arguably cross the border of hate speech, the test is whether the government would allow entry to other speakers making comparable comments about other religions.
My own preference is to let them in and have trust in Canadians to reject their rhetoric and ideas.
Canadian Muslim leaders worried U.S. speakers will spread ‘hate’ about Islam | 680News.
And in related news, concerns that the demonstration against the Charte des valeurs québécoises by the Collectif québécois contre l’islamophobie (CQI) is driven by the intégristes (fundamentalists). There is of course a range within the more fundamentalist strains of Islam in Montreal. One of the organizers, Salam Elmenyawi, is a prominent conservative Muslim in Montreal (disclosure: I have met him a number of times).
But in a democracy, all have the right to express their views, but the demonstration would likely be more effective with a more inclusive organizing committee that had some of the more liberal and secular Muslim and other organizations involved.
2013/09/13 Leave a comment
As this is behind the firewall (and it quotes me extensively!), full text below for those who do not have National Post access:
Gérard Bouchard, co-author of the Bouchard-Taylor report on diversity in Quebec, once remarked that Jason Kenney’s reforms to Canada’s multiculturalism policies had brought the Quebec and Canadian models closer — an emphasis on integration over accommodation.
Both Quebec nationalists and Canadian conservatives were suspicious of Pierre Trudeau’s multiculturalism policies — particularly the Liberal tradition of indulging cultural groups just long enough to extract their votes.
In large measure, Mr. Kenney, as Multiculturalism Minister, pursued his own charter of values. But, crucially, he used “soft” policy tools to persuade people to buy into his vision of Canada, rather than the bludgeon of legislation that the Parti Québécois government is proposing in its secularism charter.
As the author of a new book — Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism — makes clear, Mr. Kenney pursued an unabashed policy of integration (often in the face of opposition from his own public servants).
Andrew Griffith was a director general of multiculturalism at Citizenship and Immigration at a time when significant shifts in policy were being introduced by the Conservatives.
“Kenney did make a major shift towards integration … I would argue he brought multiculturalism back to its roots, as it was always about making various communities more comfortable about integrating into the Canadian ‘mainstream’, while preserving their culture, all within the common framework of Canadian laws [and] regulations,” said Mr. Griffiths.
While placing high value on cultural diversity and religious freedom, he set limits and condemned “extreme” behaviour like honour killings that were not in compliance with Canadian laws, identity and values.
In 2011, he even aligned himself with the Quebec approach when he announced that the niqab would not be allowed at citizenship ceremonies, claiming it was not a religious obligation to wear the veil. The next year, Mr. Kenney introduced a language requirement for citizenship applicants, obliging them to provide objective evidence like test results to prove they could speak either French or English.
Mr. Griffiths said Mr. Kenney’s extensive outreach into ethnic communities gave him credibility to take a broad range of positions.
“My take on him is that it is a very rare minister who can both implement more restrictive immigration, refugee and citizenship policies and yet ‘narrowcast’ to individual communities, addressing their concerns while reinforcing broader pan-Canadian messages.”
Mr. Kenney not only stressed integration into the Canadian “mainstream,” he redefined what that mainstream would look like.
Most famously, he revamped the citizenship guide for new Canadians from a very Liberal “A Look At Canada” to the Conservative-friendly “Discover Canada.”
“I think we need to reclaim a deeper sense of citizenship, a sense of shared obligations to one another, to our past, as well as to the future. In that I mean a kind of civic nationalism where people understand the institutions, values and symbols that are rooted in our history,” he told Maclean’s in 2009.
But the guide cherry-picked those symbols to promote the Conservatives’ preferred narrative, with emphasis placed on the military and the monarchy at the expense of peace-keeping, medicare and gay rights.
The results were not always appreciated internally, particularly among staff who were forced to turn down grant applications from non-governmental organizations they’d supported for years. Mr. Griffiths notes how some demonstrated the initial stages of the Kubler-Ross grief model — denial, anger and depression.
But there is some evidence that the shift in policy worked. A Citizenship and Immigration Canada survey from the 2012 departmental performance report found that 88% of foreign-born, compared to 81% of Canadian-born, respondents reported “feeling proud” to be Canadian.
Not only did foreign-born Canadians demonstrate a higher level of attachment to Canada, they also had a better understanding of what is required of citizens.
Those findings suggest that a balance has been struck between the majority culture and integration of minorities in the rest of Canada; that, in large measure, sensible public policy has ensured that the fundamental values of the majority have been respected, while allowing new Canadians to preserve their food, music, folklore and religion.
One wonders how many Sikhs, Jews and Muslims can say they feel proud to be Quebecers today?
2013/09/13 Leave a comment
The big news is the division among the sovereigntists. The Bloc has lost its one woman member, Maria Mourani with a strong position in favour of gender and religious rights. And her riding is very multicultural. Good for the Quebec debate.
Charte des valeurs québécoises – L’inconfort des forces souverainistes explose | Le Devoir.
And some articles about the impact of Quebec’s international reputation (let alone within Canada). Couillard is particularly eloquent describing his experience as a doctor in Saudi Arabia (I lived in Saudi 1986-88):
« J’ai connu, moi, c’est quoi, un régime autoritaire. J’ai connu, moi, c’est quoi, un régime qui exclut », a-t-il dit. « Je sais c’est quoi, être l’étranger qui n’a pas la religion de la majorité. Je sais c’est quoi, être celui qui n’a pas la même couleur de peau que les autres. Je sais c’est quoi, être celui qui se fait arracher ses lumières de Noël devant chez eux. C’est arrivé chez nous quand j’étais là-bas. »
Charte des valeurs québécoises – Le Québec pourrait en payer le prix, dit Couillard
The contrary view is expressed by Lise Payette, former PQ Cabinet Minister, in the 70s, who puts the proposed Charter in a liberation context – but liberation from what and from who:
Le pas que nous désirons faire aujourd’hui est la suite logique de notre libération. Nous souhaitons de tout coeur que vous en fassiez partie.
Le Québec qui renaît de ses cendres
Premier Marois continues to praise the French model of integration. France has a terrible record here with its Muslim population – just take a tour of the suburbs if you dare – and look at employment and other statistics. Me thinks broader life experience would have been helpful for her and other members of her Cabinet:
Charte des valeurs québécoises: Marois vante l’intégration à la française
And a nice reminder that Ontario hospital recruiters are looking forward to hiring new talent:
Un hôpital ontarien en recrutement
Some general analysis on Quebec dynamics and “chronic anxiety”, understandable given Quebec’s history and identity, but by no means justifying the proposed Charter, as well as the possible longer-term political impact:
PQ’s controversial new secular values charter preys on Quebec’s chronic ‘identity-related anxiety’
Quebec values charter: Is it a political game changer for the PQ?
As always, some general commentary. Again, part of the uniqueness of Canada is that even many commentators on the right strongly oppose such bans and approaches, as individual rights, including religious, are paramount. Ironic that those who once condemned the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are now among its strongest defenders:
Freedom under fire: Parti Quebecois values charter an outright attack on indidual rights
And in closing, a good opinion piece by Christian Rioux of Le Devoir contrasting the Anglo-Saxon approach, based more on inclusion and ensuring different faith groups are treated equally, and the French and Latin approach, which tends towards banning religion in the public sphere.
The reality is more complex; in practice French and Latin countries provide lots of public support to religion, whether school, maintenance of cathedrals and the like, but nevertheless a good piece to reflect upon.
He misses that the Canadian and Anglo-Saxon approach is based on individual rights, not community rights, unlike some European countries where communitarianism is more common, reflecting their history of managing Protestant and Catholic communities:
2013/09/12 Leave a comment
Starting with the dirty little secret of just how poor Quebec’s record on integrating newcomers into the government workforce – only 2 percent, compared to close to 9 percent visible minority population (2006 Census). Not surprisingly, the SFPQ union supports the Charte, as it reinforces their existing membership base.
La Charte vise moins de 2 % des fonctionnaires | Le Devoir.
PQ gets backing of civil-servants’ union for religion plan
Premier Marois maintains that the Charte is équilibrée (Laïcité – Pauline Marois affirme que sa proposition est équilibrée) and the PQ presses the private sector to follow the government’s lead on secular workplaces (PQ presses private sector to follow its lead on secular workplaces).
But more on the divisions within Quebec on the Charte. This ranges from Montreal, Quebec’s most diverse city, but Western Quebec, next to Ottawa, and diverse, remains undecided. And various groups, including sovereigntists, also expressing opposition:
Charte des valeurs: l’île de Montréal se rebiffe
Charter widens rifts between mayors, PQ and sovereigntists
Charte des valeurs: les CPE (Centres de la petite enfance) divisés
West Quebec institutions undecided on ‘opting out’ of Charter of Values
Charte des valeurs: les indépendantistes divisés
Charte des valeurs québécoises – Les souverainistes divisés
Québec inclusif – Engouement pour le manifeste anti-Charte
Couillard veut scinder la «charte de la chicane» pour l’adopter
And some more general commentary, starting with some good political analysis, particularly from Paul Wells:
Charter of values: Old dogs, nous tricks
Marois’s Charter of Values is more about electoral politics than sovereignty
Who actually applauded Quebec’s values charter?
And a good discussion about federal paternalism, acknowledging the vigorous debate within Quebec but without reference to the legitimate federal role, grounded in the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the universal declaration of human rights and other instruments.
Given the strength of the debate and controversy within Quebec, the PQ may have over-reached. I would be curious to know the advice of the public servants on the proposal – likely not comfortable given the ideological and political basis for the Charte:
Charter of Quebec values on collision course with Constitution?
And Justin Trudeau, Liberal leader who was first off the mark criticizing the Charte, has an op ed expressing faith that Quebeckers will reject the proposal, with Patrick Lagacé noting the politics of the initiative:
Justin Trudeau writes: I have faith in Quebec. So should you
The PQ’s not racist – just running scared
And a reminder that the French approach, which Quebec sometimes to draw from without due consideration of how Quebec has a history of generally successfully integrating immigrants from countries as diverse as Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Haiti, with some of the more recent waves of immigrants having more challenges (as happens elsewhere):
Quebec charter of values plan could take a few pages from France: Don Murray
And a sensible call to pursue the Bouchard-Taylor recommendation of a white paper and consultations to have an informed discussion and debate, rather than what appears to be an ad hoc electoral and divisive strategy of throwing out poorly conceived ideas and proposals. On the other hand, that may help kill the Charte.
La Charte des valeurs – L’espace du compromis
Expect that coverage will quieten over the next few weeks until the parliamentary and related processes pick up. But I have been wrong before!
2013/09/12 Leave a comment
A systemic issue for the government, one that undermines government accountability to citizens.
My own experience under the Access to Information Act only confirms that the system is broken and unable to meet its statutory obligations. Will post a log shortly on the delays, obfuscation and excuses used in not fulfilling a legitimate ATIP request.
Not a high point for the government.
The access-to-information system is busting: information czar – National | Globalnews.ca.
2013/09/11 Leave a comment
So the draft Charte is out with few surprises. Lots of reaction. Starting with what’s in and what’s out:
Would
Bar public sector employees — including everyone from civil servants to teachers, provincial court judges, daycare workers, police, health-care personnel, municipal employees and university staff — from wearing a hijab, turban, kippa, large visible crucifix or other “ostentatious” religious symbols while on the job.
Allow five-year opt-outs from the ban for certain organizations, but not daycare workers or elementary school teachers.
Require that those receiving or providing government services uncover their faces.
Exempt elected members of the Quebec legislature from the regulations.
Amend Quebec’s human rights legislation, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, to specify limits on when someone can stake a claim for religious accommodation.
Wouldn’t
Remove religious symbols and elements considered “emblematic of Quebec’s cultural heritage.” That includes: the crucifixes in the Quebec legislature and atop Mount Royal in Montreal, the thousands of religiously based geographic names (e.g. Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!) and the names of schools and hospitals.
Ban public sector employees from wearing small religious symbols like a ring with a Star of David, earrings with the Muslim crescent or a necklace with a small crucifix.
Eliminate subsidies to religious private schools. The Quebec government currently funds about 60 per cent of the budgets of most of the province’s private schools, including parochial ones.
Ban opening prayers at municipal council meetings, which was recommended by the 2008 Bouchard-Taylor Commission report into cultural accommodation. The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled in May that such prayers do not necessarily violate Quebec’s current human rights legislation.
Eliminate property tax exemptions for churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious buildings.
In other words, some of the deeper aspects of multiculturalism, deeper than the rest of Canada, and arguably less integrative like subsidies for religious schools, would remain, while imposing restrictions on public service employees. And will we have a ‘sartorial’ police measuring the size of ‘discrete’ or small religious symbols?
5 things Quebec’s values charter would do, and 5 it wouldn’t – Montreal – CBC News.
Quebec reveals religious symbols to be banned from public sector
Five key consequences of Quebec’s planned Charter of Values
Reaction in Quebec to the proposal is mixed. While Minister Drainville continues to say with a straight face that the Charte aims at harmony, others disagree, particularly in Montreal, where most of the communities live and work together:
Une Charte au nom de l’harmonie, selon Drainville
Signes religieux: la Charte se bute à un écueil
Mairie de Montréal : unanimité contre la charte des valeurs
Signes religieux – Québec fait fausse route, dit la Fédération des femmes
Charte des valeurs québécoises – Réactions mitigées sur la scène politique provinciale
«C’est une Charte contre les femmes»
Federal politicians have pronounced strongly against the proposed Charte. Particularly striking – and courageous given Quebec politics – that both federal leaders from Quebec, Justin Trudeau of the Liberals, and Tom Mulcair, Leader of the Official Opposition and NDP, have been unequivocal in their defence of human rights and freedoms, as has been Minister for Multiculturalism and Economic and Social Development Jason Kenney, speaking on behalf of the government, although as some have noted, he was less expansive than usual.
Given the Ottawa-Quebec dynamics, and the desire by the PQ to play politique identitaire, this may fit into their game plan to create a wedge issue. But irresponsible politics at best.
How Kenney, Mulcair and Trudeau took on Quebec’s charter of values
Tories gear up for constitutional fight as parties unite against PQ’s charter
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair denounces Quebec’s proposed charter of values
Some other reaction and analysis in English Canada:
Charter of Values hints that Quebec having second thoughts over mad dash for immigrants
And an opinion piece in Le Devoir in favour of laicité:
And unfortunately behind Le Devoir’s firewall, an opinion piece by Gérard Bouchard, one of the co-authors of the Bouchard-Taylor report, and one of the more thoughtful thinkers on multiculturalism and interculturalisme around. Interview below:
Le sociologue Gérard Bouchard, professeur à l’Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, a codirigé avec le philosophe Charles Taylor de l’Université McGill la Commission de consultation sur les pratiques d’accommodements reliées aux différences culturelles, en 2007-2008. Il juge sévèrement la proposition du gouvernement défendue par le ministre Bernard Drainville pour « répondre au pluralisme religieux dans un état moderne ».
Si le ministre Drainville vous appelait pour vous demander conseil, lequel lui donneriez-vous ?
Je lui dirais que la façon de poser les termes du débat indispose les libertés fondamentales et risque de produire une fracture sociale. C’est donc une mauvaise façon et nous allons nous faire mal. La sagesse consisterait présentement à couper le projet de réforme en deux. Une partie concerne les accommodements et une autre concerne les signes religieux. Sur les signes religieux, visiblement, le Québec n’est pas prêt à se diriger vers un consensus. À mon avis, cette partie du débat sera un échec. Les Québécois seront très, très divisés. Par contre, sur les accommodements, il y a toutes les chances de réaliser un très large consensus parmi l’ensemble des Québécois, la minorité, comme la majorité. Là, à mon avis, il y aurait la possibilité d’en arriver à une loi.
Et tout irait pour le mieux, tout simplement ?
Non. J’ai une autre inquiétude. En parlant des accommodements, le ministre a amplifié toutes les mauvaises perceptions à propos des accommodements. Il a répandu l’idée que les accommodements portaient atteinte régulièrement à l’égalité hommes-femmes. Ce n’est pas vrai. Aucune étude ne soutient ça. Il a aussi répété qu’il y avait une accumulation d’accommodements déraisonnables consentis récemment. Pas de preuve encore. Pas d’études. Rien pour soutenir ça.
Quel autre élément de la proposition vous semble négatif ?
Au cœur de l’affaire, il y a la volonté de s’en prendre à un droit fondamental qui concerne la liberté de manifester sa religion en public, incluant au travail, dans les postes de l’État ou les institutions parapubliques. C’est reconnu comme un droit fondamental par les deux Chartes, canadienne et québécoise, partout en Occident et par l’ONU. Il est permis de supprimer un droit fondamental. Mais il faut alors s’appuyer sur un motif supérieur. Le meilleur exemple au Québec, c’est la loi 101. Elle restreint ou supprime des droits, par exemple en limitant le droit de choisir l’école de ses enfants. Mais il y avait un motif légitime que même la Cour suprême du Canada a reconnu. Je ne trouve pas de motif équivalent dans le cas présent. Il n’y a pas de proportionnalité entre le droit restreint et les motifs évoqués.
Pourquoi est-ce si grave d’interdire des signes religieux aux fonctionnaires ?
Dire que tous les employés de l’État et des organismes parapublics — et ça fait beaucoup — devraient s’abstenir de porter un signe religieux ne tient pas compte de la réalité profonde de certaines croyances. Pour certains croyants, le signe religieux n’est pas dissociable du credo. En se défaisant du signe, le croyant trahit sa foi. C’est pourquoi jamais un sikh ne va retirer son turban au travail. Voilà pourquoi les sociétés doivent trouver des accommodements, dans la mesure où ça ne nuit à personne, sans nuire au travail.
Qu’auriez-vous souhaité alors ?
Charles Taylor et moi, dans notre rapport, nous recommandions l’adoption d’un régime de laïcité au Québec. Il fallait énoncer les grands principes et les justifier. Il fallait énoncer des règles générales de conduite à l’usage des décideurs des institutions. Ce qui a été dévoilé ne fait pas ce travail, ne décrit pas le régime de laïcité qui dirait les rapports entre les religions et les convictions profondes, qui ne sont d’ailleurs pas toutes religieuses, dans notre société. Le gouvernement a tout de suite sauté à des conclusions qui conduisent à la suppression d’un droit fondamental.
Que pensez-vous du droit de retrait de certaines institutions, pour une période allant jusqu’à cinq ans, inclus dans la proposition ?
C’est une affaire difficile à comprendre. Ce droit de retrait se trouve à défaire ce que le projet est censé faire. Premièrement, le problème juridique de fond reste. Deuxièmement, il va en découler une fragmentation juridique du Québec, d’une municipalité à l’autre, d’une université à l’autre. Une jeune étudiante portant le foulard pourra fréquenter tel cégep, mais pas tel autre. C’est assez surprenant. En général, quand l’État statue sur un droit, il le fait pour l’ensemble de la société. Il paraît très étrange de donner aux citoyens la liberté de respecter la loi et des dispositions de la Charte. Troisièmement, cette option donne à la majorité la possibilité de disposer des droits des minorités. On ne peut pas confier la gestion des droits fondamentaux aux humeurs de la majorité. Imaginez où en serait le droit des homosexuels si on fonctionnait comme ça.
Gérard Bouchard: «Nous allons nous faire mal»
And lastly, some questions for those in favour of the Charte and laicité absolue:
As someone who has been in and out of hospital for more time than I would like to remember, and has been treated with a variety of doctors and nurses, some with religious symbols, some without, competence trumps appearance and I have not been disappointed. Yesterday, it was a nurse wearing a hijab that did my regular blood work; and it was one of the more painless pokes in recent memory.
Click image for book purchase
Multicultural Meanderings 