Here we go again as in 2007 or 2013.
Debates are raging on the place to be given to religion, to religious heritage, in a Quebec society wishing to be secular, respectful of its origins and plural.
To avoid slippages, we will need shades. Like Verlaine in thepoetic art“we want the Nuance again, / Not the Color, only the nuance”.
Thursday or Friday?
On the prayer premises, it would benefit everyone. “Allow everything” would obviously be too simple. But isn’t “prohibiting” as much or almost so?
I was surprised on Tuesday, at the microphone of QUB, to hear “my” constitutional columnist Patrick Taillon seem to prefer the “Thursday Drainville” to that of Friday.
Reminder. Faced with the question of requests for prayer rooms in several schools, the Minister of Education had a first reaction where he said in substance: if these rooms are available to all worship in respect of gender equality , All right.
- Listen to the interview with Hassan Guillet, imam, engineer and retired lawyer at the microphone of available as a podcast via :
The next day, about-face. It will be a general prohibition: “School is not a place of prayer, it is not complicated”.
On the other hand, the drafting of the directive he promised will be complicated. (His entourage was unable to tell us yesterday when it would be finished and published.)
Legal context
One thing is certain, it risks being challenged fairly quickly in court. Professor Taillon reminded us: whether we like it or not, we are in a Canadian legal context where case law has subtly placed freedom of religion at the very top of the hierarchy of rights.
Another element not to be overlooked: a directive cannot be protected by a provision of parliamentary sovereignty (“DSP” alias “derogation clause”).
Mr. Drainville will be forced, in his famous directive, to show a certain willingness to accommodate. His initial reaction, that of Thursday, therefore had a better chance of being accepted by the courts than that of Friday, Prof. Taillon opined.
Terms
Prayer may not have a place in school, but it will claim one. To frame it while accommodating it, what conditions could a Quebec model of secularism impose?
Already, there are the five of Law 61 (on the religious neutrality of the State), defined in its article 14, including the 4th: Respect “the mission of the school which is to instruct, socialize and qualify students.
- Listen to the provincial and federal political chronicle with Antoine Robitaille, host of the program Là-Haut sur la colline on QUB radio at the microphone of Benoit Dutrizac on QUB-radio :
Patrick Taillon mentions other possibilities: that this type of activity be held outside of school hours; that everything happens in the official and common language of the school; that no one is excluded from this place; that it be forbidden to incite to prayer “the minorities within the minority”. For example, no pressure on a woman of Muslim origin wanting to continue to have a “timid religious practice”.
But if the government insists on sticking to a strict ban, perhaps it will be forced to pass a law on school prayer rooms containing a “DSP” (see earlier in the text ).