By dint of considering the charters of rights as foreign laws imposed on Quebec and of using derogatory clauses in a preventive manner, we are in the process of trivializing the non-respect of fundamental freedoms.
Thus, the Quebec government, through the voice of the minister responsible for the Quebec City Convention Center, Caroline Proulx, canceled a contract with an anti-abortion group that wanted to hold a rally there. The instruction is also valid for other places that belong to the government, such as the Olympic Stadium.
According to Mme Proulx, “because it is against the fundamental principles of Quebec, this type of event will not take place here”. Her colleague from the Status of Women, Martine Biron, added: “We are a resolutely pro-choice government, so we have to be consistent,” she said. As if the orientations of the government must necessarily be those of each Quebecer.
Prime Minister Legault went in the same direction: “We will not allow anti-abortion groups to be able to put on big shows in public bodies. »
Remarkably, the three opposition parties were unanimous in approving the government’s decision. Deputy Pascal Bérubé added a layer, saying: “It sends a strong message, the State, through the Convention Center, does not have to welcome such a group which promotes values that go to the against those of the state. »
But the question at issue here is neither abortion nor the right of women to have it. The principle in question is freedom of opinion and expression.
A freedom guaranteed by the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its article 3: “Everyone is entitled to fundamental freedoms such as freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion. »
However, freedom of opinion means nothing if it has to be limited to fundamental principles which have been approved by the State. Whether it agrees or not, the state does not have to censor the expression of these opinions.
We do not need to protect the speech of those who think like everyone else. It is that of people who bother to whom we must guarantee the right to express themselves.
The question of abortion is part of the public debate in practically all countries, whether abortion has been legalized there or not. It is also a subject that affects the religious beliefs of some people. And if the State has every right to legislate to legalize abortion, this in no way implies that all debate on this question is henceforth forbidden and that people who oppose abortion would not have the right to manifest it publicly.
The vast majority of Quebecers are pro-choice (by the way, the author of these lines too!), but that is not the question. But you simply cannot, in a democracy, gag those who hold opinions that are divergent or contrary to those of the majority, however overwhelming.
And when we start that, where do we stop? Will unions be prevented from renting a room in a public building to contest a special back-to-work law, for example? Could an Anglophone group challenging Bill 96 not meet?
Moreover, what are these “fundamental principles of Quebec”? Ministers, and even the Prime Minister, never even attempted to answer the question.
Certainly, in law, the expression means absolutely nothing and it would not last a minute in court. The very principle of “fundamental principles of Quebec” should have no place.
Legislators express the fundamental principles in statutes, which must contain clear and well-defined definitions and limits. Not with a vague notion that boils down, in fact, to “what is our business at this time”.
Some have tried to invoke the secularism of the state in support of this decision. Except it’s unrelated. Secularism means the neutrality of the State before all religions, that is to say to endorse or not to fight any.
But what is saddest in all of this is that no one was found in the entire National Assembly to defend the principles of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Even the three opposition parties, which usually waste no time in finding the flaw in the government’s arguments, let everything pass and did not even ask themselves whether there was not a principle important that was involved. Not even the Liberal Party, which has long defined itself as the party of fundamental freedoms and which is so searching these days that it is no longer capable of recognizing its own values when they are in question.
This silence is awkward.