The public debate about intersectional ideology must be done with reserve at this time as long as the Quebec Court of Appeal has not rendered its judgment on the validity of Bill 21 (sub justice). For what ? Because the Fédération des femmes du Québec (FFQ) and the Legal Education and Action Fund for Women (FAEJ) are calling for the invalidation of Bill 21, which would violate the intersectional right of Muslim women who wish to wear their signs religious during their working hours (see the FFQ and FAEJ brief on the FFQ website).
As PDF Quebec’s lawyer in this case, I defend that this is not the case since Bill 21 allows the State to respect its duty of State neutrality and to distance itself from religions and religious proselytism in all its forms and that, in doing so, it protects the right of women not to be treated inferiorly as prescribed by the patriarchal dogma embedded in monotheistic religions. Furthermore, I explained that the intersectional ideology, which comes to us from the United States, is not part of Canadian and Quebec law and that we must distinguish our law from the law of the United States, where the right to Gender equality is not protected in the US Constitution.
Today, the ideology of intersectionality reappears through the “political” door to enter the National Assembly of Quebec. Are we trying through this door to legitimize the intersectional ideology that the FFQ invokes as an argument that could invalidate Bill 21 before the Court of Appeal, with a view to subsequent appeals? It is the specificity of the FAEJ, co-intervener of the FFQ in the contestation of Bill 21, to engage in legal activism in order to ensure that legislators, lawyers and judges adopt the intersectional ideology.
Moreover, as former president of the Conseil du statut de la femme du Québec, I am surprised that people are letting it be understood that, without the intersectional ideology, we rule out the intersecting discriminations, or multiple discriminations that women in Quebec experience. To assert that, without this ideology, we exclude certain women, is partisan discourse and borders on demagoguery.
You can imagine that we did not wait for this new ideology to fight discrimination against all women, whatever their origins or social classes. The universalist feminists I have known for 40 years fight against patriarchy, sexual violence for all women, against racism and against all systems of oppression. Remember that it is precisely for this reason that the Quebec government has adopted gender-based analysis for these public policies.
Intersectional ideology can pose a danger to women’s right to equality, when its demands refuse the separation of religion and the state, trivialize prostitution and therefore sexual violence against women, support the commodification of women’s bodies and promote the rejection of women’s right to dignity. Some supporters of this ideology demand that the autocratic precepts of their community be prioritized at the expense of democratic principles such as gender equality.
I understand the partisan motives for annoying the government, but shortcuts are dangerous. The Court of Appeal has yet to rule on the invalidity of Bill 21 with regard to intersectionality (among other arguments) as invoked by the FFQ.
Let the Court do its work without pressure from political debate and recognize that women’s right to equality is a collective right that cannot be waived without violating the dignity of all women.