To hell with the Quebec human rights tribunal. And while we're at it, to hell with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
That was the message of the Liberal government and the Parti Quebecois opposition this week when they reiterated their determination to keep the Catholic crucifix in the National Assembly, after the tribunal ruled it must be removed from the Saguenay city council chamber.
The tribunal ruled that the city and its mayor violated the Quebec charter by opening council meetings with a prayer and displaying a crucifix and a statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the council chamber.
Mayor Jean Tremblay has announced that the city will appeal the ruling to the Quebec Court of Appeal.
In response to the tribunal's ruling, both the government and the PQ reiterated their support for keeping the crucifix in the Assembly as part of Quebec's "historical heritage."
Actually, it's more than that. In a 2007 article in Le Devoir, historian Jacques Rouillard wrote that conservative premier Maurice Duplessis introduced the crucifix into the Assembly in 1936 to symbolize an alliance between the Catholic Church and the government.
The tribunal's ruling applies directly only to the Saguenay case. But the principles on which it is based appear also to apply to other municipalities that display the crucifix in their council chambers, including Montreal, and to the Assembly.
And the tribunal addressed the "historical" argument, which had also been used by Saguenay and its mayor.
In a statement announcing its ruling (http://bit. ly/eH-6heT), the tribunal said a public authority has an "obligation of neutrality."
To ensure religious equality, "representatives of the state gathered in a political assembly held in the public space cannot fulfill their legal obligations other than by abstaining completely from praying and displaying religious symbols there."
And the "historical" argument could not justify the imposition of religious values, the tribunal said. Even if reciting a prayer and displaying religious symbols are part of a tradition, it does not eliminate "their religious significance ... or the fact that it is the imposition by a public institution of a particular religious ethic."
The almost immediate dismissal of the tribunal's ruling by the parties in the Assembly (and by municipal politicians in Montreal and elsewhere) is another sign of a decline in support for fundamental rights and freedoms accompanying the rise of identity politics in Quebec.
And it doesn't concern only the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whose legitimacy is questioned because it was imposed on Quebec along with the 1982 constitution. It also concerns Quebec's own charter, which the province adopted seven years before the advent of the Canadian charter.
Increasingly, the protection of minority rights is seen as an obstacle to the majority's assertion of its identity.
Both the Liberals, who form the present government, and the PQ, which will probably form the next one, have legislation before the Assembly to amend the Quebec charter to reduce protection for minority rights.
Already, the Charest government has passed legislation reversing the historical trend in favour of expanding rights protection in the Quebec charter, which was introduced by the Liberals.
This will make it politically easier for the PQ to restrict rights in the future.
In 1974, the Liberals introduced Bill 22, the first Quebec law restricting linguistic freedom of choice. That made it possible for the PQ, three years later, to adopt the more draconian Bill 101.
Thanks to the many readers who pointed out that the name of the show is "Tout le monde en parle," not "Tout le mode en parole," as it appeared in Thursday's column due to a spellcheck error by one of my editors.
dmacpherson@montrealgazette.com
twitter.com: yb8 MacphersonGaz