Thursday, December 5, 2013
The Associated Press
MONTREAL – Viewed from the outside, Quebec often seems like a place where all life orbits around the political destiny of a French-speaking province in an English-speaking country. The latest instance centers on religious headwear.
Supporters of a proposed Quebec “charter of values” march in Montreal on Sept. 22 Meanwhile in recent weeks, thousands of Muslims, Jews and Sikhs have marched together through the streets to protest the banning of symbols of religious faith.
The Associated Press
The trigger is a heatedly debated plan by the ruling party, the separatist Parti Quebecois, to make the provincial government religion-neutral. It wants to do so by banning symbols of religious faith such as Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans, Muslim head scarves and large crucifixes from public workplaces.
And as usual, the measure is being read also for what it says about the ruling party’s perennial goal of making Quebec independent of the rest of Canada. The analysis is that with support for separatism weakened, and an election being predicted for December, something spectacular is needed to rally the party base.
But the proposal appears to be losing support with that base, and if anyone is being mobilized, it’s the opposition. In recent weeks Montreal has witnessed the rare spectacle of thousands of protesting Muslims, Jews and Sikhs marching together through the streets.
“I just want to be able to wear what I want; I don’t see why any one can tell me what to put on my head,” Saara Khan, a Montreal Muslim high schooler who wears a head scarf, said at a recent protest.
A PROVINCE DIVIDED
The proposed ban, part of what the Quebec government calls its “charter of values,” has divided the province of 8.1 million though polls show it holds more support among French-speakers.
The Parti Quebecois is a minority government and will need opposition votes to pass the charter, which won’t happen without it being softened considerably.
Montreal, a mix of classic North American skyscrapers and the charm and style of a French city, has added a new layer of personality over the past decade with an influx of Muslim immigrants from North Africa.
But critics say the government is promoting the charter to play on fears of religious minorities, particularly among rural voters who rarely have immigrants for neighbors. The Parti Quebecois also is once again sounding the warning that the French language is under threat and needs a boost lest it become “anglicized.”
The ban on religious headwear, the most disputed element of the proposed charter, would apply to anyone working in public institutions, including day care workers, doctors, nurses, teachers and police officers.
When announcing the plan in early September, the PQ used cartoon graphics to show what would and wouldn’t be permitted. Inconspicuous necklaces and earrings would be fine. But skullcaps, turbans, head scarves, veils and any prominent religious symbol would be banned.
INSPIRED BY FRANCE
Introducing the charter, Bernard Drainville, the minister responsible, said the new rules would help unify society, ensuring the state’s neutrality and gender equality.
“In a society that’s more and more multicultural, there need to be common rules and values,” Drainville said. How would the rules be enforced? By “common sense,” he replied.
France has been pointed to as an inspiration, with its banning of the face-covering burqa and religious symbols in state schools.
Elsewhere in Canada, reactions have been fierce. The federal Conservative government says it will fight the change in court. The Ontario legislature has passed a motion of condemnation, and Naheed Nenshi, the Muslim mayor of Calgary, has invited religious minorities to move to his city where “we don’t care how you worship.”
Several former Quebec premiers have spoken out against their party’s intentions. One of them, Jacques Parizeau, recently wrote in Le Journal de Montreal that the plan stems from fear of Islam, because “About the only contact most Quebecers have with the Islamic world is through images of violence.”
(Continued on page 2)