I know, no column will change your mind about the Law on the secularism of the State. All the arguments for and against have been heard, at every decibel level.
But whatever your opinion, the reassignment of a veiled teacher from the 3e elementary year, in Chelsea, in the Outaouais, should at the very least make one think. It reveals two important things: the risk of reducing secularism to an Ottawa-Quebec confrontation as well as the difference between those who theorize the debate and those who live it on a daily basis.
Let’s start with the federal government.
English Canada is exerting enormous pressure on the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats to denounce the Quebec law.
Few of them present the secular argument, namely to require that teachers refrain from wearing a religious symbol, out of duty of neutrality and out of respect for the freedom of conscience of their students. Few also give voice to Muslims who support the Quebec ban and who recall that the wearing of the veil is required only by the most rigorous interpretations of Islam.
No nuance is possible, and good faith does not exist. The case is heard: this law would be “racist”. Even if it targets religion, and not “race”.
Bob Rae, Ambassador of Canada to the UN, maintains that the Quebec law would be downright incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, our courts have not yet decided the case on the merits.
And in Europe, the Court of Human Rights has already ruled that limiting the wearing of religious symbols could be justified.1. Mr. Rae does not force himself to give good publicity to his country or to some of his allies such as France, Italy and Germany …
This background helps to understand the embarrassed reactions of Jagmeet Singh and Erin O’Toole.
Mr. O’Toole does not want to comment on the law. Mr. Singh is opposed to it, and it is not surprising. She would forbid him to teach in Quebec with his turban. What is surprising, however, is that the NDP leader did not dare to say so clearly during the election campaign. Looking back, he should have been blunt. With only one seat in Quebec, he had little to lose.
However, criticizing the law in Quebec is a delicate operation, especially if you are Prime Minister of Canada and your last name is Trudeau.
Justin Trudeau suggests he will intervene during the inevitable challenge of the law in the Supreme Court. For the rest, he weighs his words. He plays the balancing act, and on each side of the wire, he receives tomatoes. In the eyes of English Canada, it lacks firmness. While for Quebecers in favor of Law on the secularism of the State, he remains an enemy.
Yet Mr. Trudeau is right on one point: no matter what he does, the law is already being challenged. The only question is whether the federal government will claim intervenor status to add its pleadings. Of course, this could influence the judges. But it is also possible that even if Ottawa remained passive, the Supreme Court would overturn the ban on religious symbols. Only the notwithstanding clause would then keep it in force.
If he went any further, he would harm his own cause.
The more Canada denounces the law on secularism, the more certain Quebecers hold to it. Its meaning is slipping. It is no longer only used to limit the wearing of religious symbols. It becomes a gesture of national affirmation. For some, it is precisely because the federal government denounces this law that it must be defended. As a reminder that Quebec can choose its own model.
François Legault said a little that in an interview last winter.
The debate becomes more symbolic. But at the same time, it is also becoming less and less theoretical.
It is true that the Law on the secularism of the State is sometimes supported because of anti-Muslim sentiment. But it is also supported by great intellectuals like Guy Rocher, a key player in the deconfessionalisation of our schools.
According to him, students are young and easily influenced, and teachers exercise moral authority over them. It comes with certain duties and responsibilities. For example, not to wear a political badge in class. The ban on religious symbols follows this logic.
On paper, this theoretical reasoning is defended. But he omits several concrete questions: how many teachers wear a religious symbol? How many proselytizing complaints have been documented? And what exactly are we trying to solve?
Watch the reactions. The people around the Chelsea teacher all looked sorry. This is a reminder that one of the best predictors of tolerance towards a group is knowing a member of it.
And even if the ban protected students, would this benefit be greater than the risk of exacerbating social tensions?
The meaning given to religious clothing varies according to the context and the individual. I am afraid that we will create a backlash. That by banning religious symbols, we encourage believers to display them. Less for reasons of faith than for reasons of identity affirmation.
Sartre once said that anti-Semitism makes the Jew. This is true for the other groups as well. The more one’s culture or religion is attacked, the more it is claimed. For reasons more of identity than of religion.
Moreover, the teacher herself admitted to theOttawa Citizen that his hijab was more identity than religious.
“It’s important for me to keep wearing it because I know some ideologies don’t want me to wear it. It is my resistance and my resilience ”, she confided in English..
This can be seen as proof that the headscarf is a personal choice, that it conveys a political message and that it can be taken off. But conversely, it is possible to detect, on the contrary, the danger of this law: locking people into their community and giving them the impression of being rejected by Quebeckers.
At the very least, everyone should recognize a common paradox between supporters of the secularism law and those who hold on to their religious symbols: when they feel attacked without nuance and without respect, their attitude becomes firmer.
This is something that everyone would do well to ponder. This justifies, at the very least, to shout less loudly his disagreement.
1. Decisions in favor of banning religious symbols in schools have been handed down in particular in the cases of France, Italy, Switzerland and Turkey. Other restrictions have also been validated in the United Kingdom and Belgium.