It’s been an inauspicious month for Premier Pauline Marois’ minority Parti Québécois (PQ) government.
First it tabled its so-called charter of Quebec values. Bill 60 – whose full, Orwellian name is the “Charter affirming the values of state secularism and religious neutrality and of equality between women and men, and providing a framework for accommodation requests” – seeks to ban public servants, broadly defined, from wearing religious symbols at work.
There’s no point sugar-coating the plan. It’s exclusionary and reactionary, plain and simple. As many critics have noted, it’s a classic case of a solution in search of a problem. There was – and is – little evidence that public servants can’t put aside their religious beliefs when doing their jobs.
But as is so often the case with divisive, wedge politics, the charter’s true purpose lies elsewhere. Bill 60 sacrifices minority rights in a craven effort to gain a majority and provoke a fight with Ottawa, with the ultimate aim of achieving separation for Quebec.
Hard on the heels of the charter came the party’s adoption of a resolution that forbids PQ candidates from wearing religious headgear or symbols. This means that, even if they were to believe in the PQ’s goals, hijab-, turban- and kippah-wearers can never represent the party in Quebec’s National Assembly.
It’s sad to see the PQ, a broad coalition of left-wing social democrats and centrist economic separatists, exploit right-wing bigotry and left-wing secularist fears of religion to score cheap political points. And it’s no excuse to say that most Quebecers support the idea.
These tactics aren’t in keeping with the party of former PQ premiers René Lévesque and Lucien Bouchard, who both were careful to respect minority rights when they headed the party. Indeed, it’s telling that Bouchard was joined by fellow former PQ premiers Bernard Landry and Jacques Parizeau in condemning the charter, especially given the latter’s own history of unguarded comments about ethnic groups in Quebec.
As a long-established minority in the province that understands the dangers of persecution, Jews have a duty to confront the charter and the xenophobic tendencies behind it, although it is irresponsible and inaccurate to liken the current situation to Germany in the 1930s, as some have done.
Perhaps the battle is one that’s best fought in the places that would be most affected. Thus, kudos are due to Montreal’s Jewish General Hospital – now led by Dr. Lawrence Rosenberg, an observant, kippah-wearing Jew – for declaring its intention to fight the charter.
“This bill is flawed and contrary to Quebec’s spirit of inclusiveness and tolerance,” he said last week. “Since the bill is inherently prejudicial, there is no point in taking advantage of any clause that would grant us temporary, short-term relief. If approved, this offensive legislation would make it extremely difficult for the JGH to function as an exemplary member of Quebec’s public health-care system.”
If the PQ ultimately wants to fight a third referendum, it should do so on the merits, or lack thereof, of Quebec sovereignty, not by violating religious freedoms.
The Parti Québécois is better than this. It would be best for all Quebecers if it backs down from its divisive strategy, one that’s splitting the party and the province.
Daniel Wolgelerenter