It should be noted first of all that we abhor unwanted reactions from English Canada. They are neither new nor useful. Let us also remember that we are determined supporters of the secularism of the State, sovereignists and defenders of women’s rights. However, we are part of this large minority in Quebec who disavows the position of Bill 21 on the wearing of religious symbols, particularly for teachers. We wish to refute some of the assertions advanced by Mr. Lisée in his column “Laïcité et obscurantisme” (December 15).
Bill 21 would be, according to him, feminist, because it condemns the manifestations of submission of women, but also because it could help those who want to escape from an environment of submission. Yes, the major religions are all, to varying degrees, marked by conceptions and rules that discriminate against women and sexual minorities. However, it is neither for Mr. Lisée, nor for the State to decide for women and sometimes in spite of them, what will be the path of their emancipation. When women need state policies, they demand them loud and clear, especially those who feel discriminated against and forgotten. Feminist organizations actively support them. They lead the fight, with women, respecting their aspirations. No one can take the place of the main stakeholders.
Law 21 would be anti-discrimination. A “colossal social pressure” would have led the Quebec religious of the Catholic majority to abandon their ostentatious costumes and symbols following the Quiet Revolution. And so, it is now the turn of the minority religions. The problem is that this story read and heard from the infamous “charter of values” is false. It was the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) that led men and women religious in Quebec and elsewhere to abandon the most restrictive aspects of religious dress. The Catholic Church then wanted to get closer to believers, to get in tune with them, at a time when modernity was taking more and more place.
Let us recall that it was quite common until recent years to find in our public schools teachers wearing rather long skirts and blouses decorated with a very visible cross. Everyone knew they were nuns and no one cared. It was when the question of wearing the veil first appeared in our schools that we discovered an appetite for long debates on religious symbols.
Our Bill 21 is, according to Mr. Lisée, avant-garde. We would be the most progressive people in North America in many ways. Our independence with regard to religious dogmas has been asserted with vigor, we agree. But there is a world between the popular will to live in a state free from all religious influence – to which we subscribe – and the most loathsome aspect of Law 21, that of prohibiting female teachers wearing a veil of ‘exercise their profession. We insist on the veil even if the law applies to all visible religious symbols. Why ? Because he is the real subject of the debate.
Let us return to what secularism is: a vision of the world affirming the importance of a state that governs by not supporting any religion, by preferring none, as well as by adopting laws based on the common good rather than on religious dictates. Whether or not people employed by the state wear religious symbols is only one of the many steps that can be taken by a secular government. In other words: Law 21 is not secularism. The Caquista government, supported, it is true, by a large part of the Quebec population, chose a particular measure, but several others could have been considered: ending the funding of private religious schools, canceling tax exemptions for religious buildings. . Each government in each country decides what form secularism will take at home.
It was probably more profitable politically to attack a few dozen women teachers whose only fault is to wear a veil that many do not want to see. Some fear proselytizing which has never been demonstrated. Others will say: we don’t want a teacher in a classroom with a symbol of female submission. The argument has been discussed and debated for many years among feminists without any consensus emerging. The authors of this text, incidentally, know several Muslim women wearing the veil who are fighters, turned on and feminists. Could it be that their reality is more complex than what we imagine? If we listened to them? What if we trusted our children and grandchildren? Confronted with multiple influences – parents, teachers, educators, friends, not to mention the Internet – they will know how to chart their course for the future.
In conclusion, the chronicler dresses religious beliefs with unflattering epithets: superstitious, ostentatious as regards minority religions, far from progress. We, however non-believers, feel immense unease at this judgment. The choice of epithets manifests a deep disrespect for those who have religious convictions. Moreover, is Mr. Lisée unaware that several progressive and feminist activists are part of a long line of believers in Quebec, and have been for a long time?
Let us hope that the holiday season will make each and every one of us reflect on how to hold debates while respecting and listening to all.
Columnist’s response
What would M’s reaction beme David and Mr. Seymour if civil servants, men or women, began to wear around their necks the symbol of a secular organization officially favorable to the inequality of men and women and affirming that homosexuality is to be banned? Immediately, they would denounce the appearance of misogynistic and homophobic symbols in the state. But because the symbols are religious, they turn their heads, close their eyes, bless the affront. Like the Canadian multiculturalists and Quebec solidaire, the two authors have swallowed the principle of the primacy of religious display – admirable – over the display of other beliefs, prohibited. That they do not see it as intolerable discrimination is inexplicable. As for the Christian display, Vatican II did have an impact, but as the authors note, it took a while before it died out altogether. If there were, perhaps a few dozen, law 21 now prohibits it. This is fair and good.
Jean-Francois Lisée