Quebec values or diversion?

Editorial

Economy’s bad. Political popularity’s down. No relatively harmless external threat is available to divert voters’ attention. Must be time to galvanize public support by capitalizing on people’s fears. Taking a page from Putin’s book, Quebec’s Premier Pauline Marois’ Parti Quebecois government has proposed a “Charter of Values,” the most notable characteristic of which would be to ban the wearing of religious symbols by public servants.

“Contributions by Quebecers of all origins have enabled us to build an open society that shares fundamental values,” states the government’s Nos Valeurs (Our Values) website about the proposed charter. “These values defining Quebec society and constituting a form of social contract are, among others, equality between women and men, religious neutrality of Quebec’s public institutions, and recognition of a common historic heritage.

“By affirming these values, we are proposing to build a strong Quebec identity, whether one was born here or elsewhere.

“The state has an obligation to be neutral, which is an essential condition to ensure freedom of conscience and religion.

“The best way to respect everyone’s beliefs is for the state to remain neutral and have no religion. This principle promotes pluralism by ensuring fair and equal treatment of all beliefs.”

The government’s proposal would entail amending the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, establishing “a duty of neutrality and reserve for all state personnel,” limiting “the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols,” making “it mandatory to have one’s face uncovered when providing or receiving a state service” and establishing “an implementation policy for state organizations.”

Put simply, however, the methods through which the charter proposes to protect the “values” that “respect everyone’s beliefs” are xenophobic and antithetical to the stated values of our larger Canadian society; and even Quebec’s own Charter Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which already guarantees every person the “right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, color, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.”

It is hard not to see the proposal of the new charter as an attempt by Marois’ minority government to both get Quebecers minds off the economy and how little the PQ has improved the province, as well as to restore the separatist party’s importance by sowing division between the people of Quebec and those in the rest of Canada, and between francophones and anglophones/allophones within the province. The charter – and the backlash it has predictably provoked – seems like a calculated political manoeuvre by a government that has seen public support for separation, its core raison d’être, fall in recent years. And, it seems to be working. Opinion polls suggest that a majority of Quebecers (66 percent) support the idea, with more support in rural areas and from francophones.

The proposed charter works because it taps into legitimate concerns felt by many Quebecois. Large numbers of them fear that assimilation, birth rates, immigration and inundation by the monolithic linguistic culture(s) that surrounds them will result in the disappearance of their uniqueness, their language and their cultural and political distinctiveness. The reaction to the values charter among non-francophones probably only affirms their fears that the majority of Canadians do not particularly understand or care about Quebec’s uniqueness or the need to preserve it.

The values charter, like Bill 101 (the Charter of the French Language) and other acts before this, is motivated by fear. While the fear may be justified, the exploitation of it by the government is not. If the proposed charter is passed, what’s next? Headgear and jewelry are not the only possible indicators of religious, or other, difference. Will religious beards need to be shaven off? Will there come to be a mandatory uniform? How about a requirement for civil servants to paint themselves blue so all skin color is the same? How will the government remedy discrepancies in people’s height, weight, accent and other personal attributes in its effort to “maintain social peace and promote harmony”? Will measures eventually extend beyond the public sector?

In the Quebec government’s press release, Democratic Institutions Minister Bernard Drainville concluded, “Tout au long de son histoire, le Québec a toujours su trouver un point d’équilibre entre le respect des droits de chaque personne et le respect de nos valeurs communes. Ces propositions s’inscrivent dans cette tradition profondément démocratique.”

There are many words in that statement that Drainville and his fellow PQers might want to look up, not the least of which are balance, respect and democracy. They clearly have no idea what these terms mean.

^TOP