While Bill 21 advocating the religious neutrality of the Quebec state continues to be the target of all attacks from English Canada, it is clear that the federal government does not shine for its religious neutrality. The tendency is rather to promote and protect religious discourse against any criticism.
Thus, according to the budget forecasts announced last week, the federal government plans to set aside $85 million for a “national action plan to combat hate” to support, in particular, community projects for religious minorities, as well as 5, 6 million dollars to support “the new special representative in charge of the fight against Islamophobia”.
Your opinion
interests us.
Do you have an opinion to share? A text between 300 and 600 words that you would like to submit to us?
Examples
Expressions of hate towards anyone are inadmissible and must be banned. But will any criticism of Islam or Islamism, or any limits imposed on religious manifestation, be considered Islamophobia and therefore prohibited? For example, will denouncing the veiling of young girls as a traumatic and harmful practice be declared Islamophobic and thereby censored, as happened to the pediatrician Sherif Emil who questioned the use of a photo of girl wearing the hijab on the cover of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) in November 2021?
Note that the federal budget plans to spend $4 million to provide the Muslims in Canada Archive the opportunity to reinterpret Islamic “narratives” and “enable Canada’s strong and diverse Muslim community to tell their stories in their own words. » Will initiatives like #LetUsTalk launched by the Canadian Yasmine Mohammed, which aims to free speech on the atrocities of political Islam, particularly against women, be put to use, or on the contrary banned from public discourse to leave room only for the valorization of the Islamist “narrative”?
Moreover, if we rely on the countless attacks supported by the federal government against Bill 21, everything leads us to believe that the taxpayers’ money invested in the “fight against Islamophobia” will be used to fight against this legitimate law. , supported by a majority of Quebecers.
And what about the hateful and discriminatory speeches contained in the religious texts themselves, against women, apostates, disbelievers, homosexuals or even certain ethnic or racial groups? Even if it is a question of adopting a law to counter hate speech online, in particular by strengthening the criminal code, Justin Trudeau has shown no intention of repealing section 319(3)b, which provides protection for hate speech if it is made in good faith and based on a religious text. Hate speech is thus permitted for believers.
religious advancement
In this month of tax reports, let’s remember other religious privileges that are heavily funded by the federal government. In fact, organizations with OBE status (charities) are exempt from income tax, consumption taxes (QST and GST), property tax and municipal and school taxes.
However, this status can be attributed to organizations that offer no social benefit other than to “promote religion”. According to the government, this means “to manifest, advance, preserve or reinforce belief in three main attributes of a religion, namely, faith in a superior and invisible power, such as God, a supreme being or entity; religious practice or deep respect; a particular and complete system of dogmas and practices.” Thus, it is religion itself that is considered to be a charitable activity.
To get an idea of the situation, let’s recall the figures revealed in a survey of the newspaper The duty: according to data from the Canada Revenue Agency, in 2019 in Quebec there were 4,330 OBEs working to promote religion. By comparison, there were 3,701 OBEs fighting poverty and 2,568 OBEs working in education. According to research by Professor Luc Grenon of the University of Sherbrooke, tax credits to religious organizations alone deprived Ottawa of $1.57 billion in 2007. These religious OBEs collected in 2010 approximately 40% of donations eligible for the tax credit, and one in two religious OBEs said they did not provide public benefit, as all of their activities were related to faith and worship. This is the case, for example, of organizations of cloistered sisters who devote their lives to prayer.
Whether through anti-hate campaign funding or through tax benefits to OBEs, Canada profusely funds religious advocacy and discourse, not only giving no comparable benefit to organizations advocating for other philosophies of life, such as associations of humanists, atheists or others, but by setting up initiatives aimed at silencing all religious criticism.
Is this the “religious neutrality” advocated by the federal government?
Nadia El-Mabrouk and Marie-Claude Girard
Rally for Secularism (RPL)