The saga currently brewing regarding the crusade of the Autonomous Federation of Education (FAE) to contest the Law on State Secularism (Law 21) and the use of the derogation provision, reminds me of a scene from the movie The toy between the character of Pierre Richard and his banker. Allow me this histrionic analogy from another era, but I believe that it clearly and graphically illustrates the situation between the FAE and several of its members. Here is the reconstructed scene:
Pierre Richard, to the waiter: “The bill, please. »
The banker: “Okay, well, I’ll pay. »
Pierre Richard: “But no, it’s me who invites you…”
The banker: “Inviting me with my money is so kind!” »
The president of the union organization, Mélanie Hubert, has just announced that the FAE is launching a challenge to Law 21 at the Supreme Court. This protest is financed from the contributions of its members. Defending your cause using our money is so kind! We are talking here about 1.2 million dollars. This sum could have been used as strike funds for teachers who sacrificed themselves for the cause. For “his” cause. From the movie The toywe move here to Dinner for idiots. Many teachers feel cheated and powerless in the face of the big union machine.
In light of the numerous interviews to which Mme Hubert lent himself, we understand that this decision to go to the Supreme Court originated, among other things, around ten years ago. In 2013, the “union bodies” adopted a proposal which aimed to protect the acquired rights of people who wear religious symbols at work. And the fundamental right to protect people who support secularism, what do we do with it?
Why go back ten years, to the time of the Charter of Quebec Values, to justify in a convoluted manner the challenge to Bill 21 and the exemption provision? Why not consult today’s members by referendum? Why is it now – and through the media – that members are receiving this information, in dribs and drabs, in abstruse jargon? Finally, how is it that the FAE arrogates to itself the right to replace a duly elected government which had the support of the majority of the population regarding the adoption of law 21?
Recently retired, I work as a substitute several times a week. I obviously pay union dues. When I think that these modest sums are used to combat my sincere conviction regarding secularism, I feel a deep unease. I even wonder if I want to continue doing substitute work. In the midst of a shortage, this option would not benefit students.
I also tell myself that we missed the boat by not having a teachers’ order. The school’s primary mandate is to teach and serve students, not to play politics or promote ideology. A teachers’ order could have regulated this type of ideological slippage.
In 2013, I was not at the congress among the union bodies. I taught in Morocco in an international school made up of 90% Moroccan students of Muslim faith. I taught secondary school literature. The philosophical tale Candid by Voltaire was on the program. I remember a student who asked me: “Madam, are you an atheist?” » I responded straight away: “I’m a teacher. » It stopped there. My role as a teacher is not to display my convictions (or the absence of them), but to teach my subject with all the complexity that this requires.
If I were asked this question in 2024, I would probably answer the same thing. On the other hand, deep down, I would feel vaguely like an imposter thinking that against my will, my union dues serve causes that go against my deepest convictions.