Of all of the important issues in this campaign, one was largely flying under the radar — until it was the subject of a highly revealing exchange in Thursday’s third and final debate. Until then, precious little had been said about the fact that three of the four main parties vying for votes Oct. 1 would forbid those wielding state authority from wearing visible signs of their religions.
That lack of discussion was disconcerting. In the 2014 election, the Parti Québécois’s attempt to introduce a charter of values that would have had similar, albeit broader, effects, was subjected to intense scrutiny. In both cases, what we are talking about is religious discrimination wrapped in the cloak of secularism; about supposedly even-handed rules that would have a less than even-handed effect. The wearing of certain garments, notably turbans, hijabs or kippahs, is an integral part of religious practice for many adherents of minority religions, and not merely a public statement of belief like a political button. It would be sadly ironic to enact such a law in the name of state neutrality. Its effects would be anything but neutral. Rather, it would be a modern-day version of the Test Act, which, from the beginning of British rule in 1763 until passage of the Quebec Act in 1774, required all applicants for the public service to swear an oath that no practising Roman Catholic could abide, because it denounced the pope and transubstantiation. Thus, it effectively excluded Catholics from those positions.
What we have been hearing about, and hearing about, is immigration, a different issue, but one that has similarly been advanced to address the fears of many Quebecers that an alien “they” somehow will erode “our” identity.
Premier and Liberal Leader Philippe Couillard, in his exchanges with Coalition Avenir Québec Leader François Legault during Thursday’s debate, stood firmly on the side of freedom of religion, sending a powerful message of inclusion.
When Legault asked, “Why, Mr. Couillard, to you want to allow a policewoman to wear a hijab?” Couillard retorted, “Why, Mr. Legault, do you want to take away the rights of a Québécoise?”
Legault repeatedly emphasized that public opinion polls, as well as the PQ and Québec solidaire, backed restrictions similar to his. And he made it clear that he would be prepared to invoke the notwithstanding clause to “defend our values” and infringe on Quebecers’ rights in this way.
Couillard replied that in a democracy, minority rights are not decided by polls, and suggested a premier should defend the rights of all Quebecers, not only the majority. Just so.
