quebec Archives - Page 5 of 7

CFI Canada Rejects Secularism—Again

…and lends its support to religious fanatics

2019-05-07 Last modified: 2019-05-13

Once again, by opposing Quebec’s Draft Bill 21, CFI Canada rejects the very secularism which it claims to espouse. But this time it’s worse: CFIC is now indulging in odious slander copied from secularism’s worst ennemies.

Sommaire en français Sans suprise, CFI Canada exprime son rejet de la laïcité telle que formulée dans le projet de loi 21 au Québec. Mais cette fois, c’est pire, car cette organisation reprend le langage diffamatoire utilisé par les pires ennemis du la laïcité.

The Centre for Inquiry Canada (CFI Canada or CFIC) is an organization which pretends to support secularism, which it even claims as one of its “core areas of focus.” And yet, CFIC opposes secularism in the very place—Quebec—where the most significant progress toward that goal is being made.

We saw this behaviour of CFIC back in 2013 when that organization threw Quebec secularists under the bus by taking a position against the Charter of Secularism proposed by the government of the time. CFIC’s betrayal then was bad enough. But now, in 2019, it has repeated this shameful act in an even worse way.

In an article which was sent out by email and which appears on CFIC’s website, the organization not only fails to support Quebec Draft Bill 21, “An Act respecting the laicity of the State,” it denigrates that proposed legislation using language which is copied directly from anti-secular dogma and inspired by far-right Islamist propaganda.

Although the article never mentions Draft Bill 21 explicitly, it is clearly the target of disapproval. Also, the language of the article suggests the initiation of a debate, but it is obvious that rejection of Bill 21 is the foregone conclusion.

The CFIC article opposes secularism with a combination of misunderstanding, misinformation, and dishonesty. For example:

The article’s definition of “secularism” is limited to mere religious neutrality, thus failing to include religion-state separation. In other words, it is not full secularism.
The article fails to distinguish between public and civic spaces, falsely claiming that the Quebec law suppresses religious expression in the public space.
The article suggests that the legislation is “racist (or at least xenophobic).” Thus the article conflates race and religion, just like regressive pseudo-leftists, parliamentary motion M-103 and Islamists.
The article even suggests that Bill 21 is “just an implementation of ‘cultural Christianity’” which is a completely nonsensical assertion.

As a friend of mine expressed it on Facebook, “In an unsigned diatribe, CFI Canada, again, uses the standard arguments and half-truths of the regressive left to spew the usual vacuous accusations of xenophobia and racism against Quebec’s laicity. Lame, dishonest and disheartening.”

So what exactly does this horrible Bill 21 propose?

It includes a comprehensive definition of secularism, including the all-important principle of separation between religion and State (the principle which is missing from CFIC’s article). Excellent!
It stipulates that an official declaration of State secularism be inscribed in the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Excellent!
It bans public servants on duty in positions of authority, including schoolteachers, from wearing obvious religious symbols while on the job. This is incomplete—the ban should apply to the all civil servants—but a very good start.
It restricts the wearing of face-coverings by public servants on duty and by users of public services. Again, very good!

Rejecting the first two points means rejecting secularism. Rejecting the third point means giving higher priority to religious exhibitionism than to the freedom of conscience of users and students. Rejecting the fourth point means compromising security and communication. Rejecting the third and fourth points means allowing religious fanatics free reign in civic institutions.

Any person who always, without exception, wears an obvious symbol of religious affiliation when leaving home is probably a religious fanatic. If that person refuses to remove the symbol even while working as a public servant, then he or she is certainly a religious fanatic and fundamentalist. Quebec’s Bill 21 would put a small but important brake on religious fanaticism in public services, just as existing Quebec law already bans public servants from partisan political displays. Bill 21 does not discriminate against any religion nor against any group of persons: the only requirement is to remove obvious religious symbols when on the job.

CFIC claims to value critical thinking in addition to secularism. What a bad joke. By rejecting Bill 21, the CFIC article manifests a total lack of critical acumen while offering its support to religious fanatics. We all know that religious fundamentalists, and Islamists in particular, have targeted secularism, especially republican secularism, in their campaign to impose their ideology, and that many so-called leftists have been duped by this strategy. The CFIC article capitulates to the anti-secular propaganda of many media, most mainstream politicians and regressive pseudo-leftists who in turn just regurgitate the Islamist propaganda against republican secularism.

What arguments does CFIC offer to justify the unjustifiable? None. Nothing whatsoever. Other than empty clichés such as “diversity,” their only response is slander, spewing gratuitous accusations of “racism” and such. They have nothing more than that to rationalize their irrationality.

The implications are very serious. CFIC’s current attitude is unsurprising given its past behaviour, but it still constitutes a disgusting betrayal of Quebecers in particular and of secularism in general. CFIC’s behaviour in 2013 could perhaps be explained as simple ignorance of the principles of republican secularism (i.e. CFIC’s failure to go beyond mere religious neutrality to include religion-state separation as well), but its current position is far worse than that. CFIC has gone beyond failing to support secularists and is now transmitting slanderous anti-secular propaganda. The conflation of race and religion is particularly inexcusable.

The current CAQ government of Quebec (unlike the PQ government in 2013-2014) is in a sufficiently strong position that it will in all probability succeed in passing Draft Bill 21 into law. But history will recall the odious betrayal by Canadian organizations outside Quebec, such as CFIC, who reviled the very cause they claimed to espouse.

Correction 2019-05-13: “public institutions” replaced by “civic institutions” for clarity

Next blog: Six Pseudo-Arguments of Antisecularists

For Secularism in Hospitals

2019-05-05

The draft bill on secularism proposed by the current Quebec government should be extended to apply to medical personnel in hospitals. Andréa Richard explains why.

Sommaire en français Il est à souhaiter que le projet de loi laïque proposé au Québec soit étendu pour s’appliquer au personnel dans les hôpitaux. Andréa Richard nous explique pourquoi.

Ce blogue est aussi disponible en français.

The Draft Bill 21 proposed by the Quebec government—welcomed very favorably by both the population and all secular organizations in Quebec—represents an excellent advance for secularism. Nevertheless, this draft legislation is very incomplete. It bans the wearing of religious symbols by public servants in positions of authority, including public school teachers, but the ban does not apply to hospitals.

Andréa Richard, former nun, author of Au-delà de la religion (Beyond Religion) and Femme après le cloître (The Uncloistered Woman), and winner of the 2018 Condorcet-Dessaulles Prize, is very concerned about this omission. She therefore decided to express her concerns in the form of a brief, addressed to the Committee on Institutions of the National Assembly of Quebec, in which she eloquently explains the necessity for religious neutrality among medical personnel. The brief is not yet published (although it should be soon on the web site of the National Assembly, but Ms. Richard has graciously allowed me to quote several excerpts (which I have translated). She begins by presenting the problem at hand:

I wonder if it would be possible, during your parliamentary deliberations, to addess and solve the very real problem of ostentatious religious symbols worn by doctors and nurses. Now would really be the best time to discuss this issue, so that Bill 21 on laicity might be more complete. If dealing with this issue is delayed, it might be too late and the task would evidently become more difficult.

In fact, to allow doctors and nurses to wear such symbols constitutes a religious accommodation, a privilege granted to religions, an advantage which benefits some employees to the detriment of others. Such religious accommodations necessarily constitute breaches of religious neutrality.

Those who demand accommodations of a religious nature are considered by their respective communities to be fanatics. By ceding to such demands, we do not serve progress of our society but, on the contrary, cater to religious fundamentalism which is a brake on social progress.

Let us get to the heart of the problem, with a few examples to illustrate:

In a hospital, patients who, more often than not, are vulnerable, should not have to suffer discomfort caused by the very caregivers whose purpose is to care for them. […]

Imagine a dying man who, in his youth, was raped by a pedophile priest and who is confronted by the sight of a priest, wearing a Roman collar and crucifix, who arrives at his bedside to ask if he would like the last sacraments. The patient would certainly be ill at ease, or worse…

Imagine a Muslim woman, hospitalized because she was beaten by her father for refusing to wear the veil, who sees a veiled female nurse or doctor arrive at her bedside to care for her. What do you think her reaction would be?

My father-in-law was an atheist and had specified that, if hospitalized, he did not want a priest to attend to him. And yet, the hospital chaplain came to him to offer the last sacraments. He was dying and unable to express his refusal…

Ostentatious religious symbols have an obvious purpose: to symbolize a doctrine which goes beyond the common humanity which we all share. They are the very image of religious fundamentalism.

Ms. Richard exposes very clearly the victim-playing game which some religious apologists play in order to denigrate secularism:

To claim that an employee of the State who refuses to remove her ostentatious religious symbol is being denied employment is totally incongruous, because it is she who excludes herself by choosing her religion over her profession. If an individual is unable or unwilling to obey the rules of the job, then it is up to that individual to choose between her/his religious convictions and her/his professional obligations.

Absolute tolerance is not a virtue:

Tolerance is an admirable quality, but to tolerate the intolerable can easily become an abdication of responsibility. A religious symbol, for its part, is inappropriate on the clothing of a public servant because such a symbol is not “proper” for the job. […]

The society of tomorrow will be either theocratic or secular. For the benefit of future generations, we must face our responsibilities now. If we do not, those who follow us will accuse us of allowing a return to the Middle Ages and they will be right. […]

To grant religious accommodations enables the development of communitarianism which is a fertile breeding ground for fundamentalism. Those who claim to speak in the name of God are usurpers. To accept their word is to be complicit with their dishonesty.

In conclusion, Ms. Richard reminds us that it is our duty to resist the flood of religious obscurantism which currently threatens our world:

The foundation of every religion is indoctrination, a strictly human phenomenon whose precepts are erroneous and necessarily deceitful. When we concede to demands for accommodations from religions or from their adherents, when we endorse them in one way or another, our behaviour is complicit with their errors and lies.

We need to wake up to this reality.

Next blog: CFI Canada Rejects Secularism—Again

Plaidoyer pour la laïcité dans les hôpitaux

2019-05-04

Il est à souhaiter que le projet de loi laïque proposé au Québec soit étendu pour s’appliquer au personnel dans les hôpitaux. Andréa Richard nous explique pourquoi.

Summary in English The draft bill on secularism proposed by the current Quebec government should be extended to apply to medical personnel in hospitals. Andréa Richard explains why.

This blog is also available in English.

Le projet de loi 21 récemment proposé par le gouvernement du Québec — accueilli très favorablement, et par la population et par l’ensemble des associations laïques au Québec — représente une excellente avancée pour la laïcité. Toutefois ce projet de loi demeure très incomplet. Il interdit le port de signes religieux par les fonctionnaires en positions d’autorité, y compris les enseignant(e)s dans les écoles publiques, mais cette interdiction ne s’applique pas aux hôpitaux.

Andréa Richard, ancienne religieuse, auteure des livres Au-delà de la religion et Femme après le cloître et lauréate du Prix Condorcet-Dessaulles 2018, s’inquiète de cette lacune. Elle s’est donc adressée à la Commission des institutions de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec par le biais d’un mémoire dans lequel elle explique éloquemment la nécessité de neutralité religieuse chez le personnel médical. Ce mémoire n’est pas encore publié (il le sera éventuellement sur le site web de l’Assemblée nationale), mais Mme Richard m’a gentiment permis d’en citer quelques extraits. Elle présente d’abord la problématique :

Je me demande s’il vous serait possible, lors des échanges parlementaires, de soulever et de régler le problème réel que constituent les signes religieux ostentatoires portés par des médecins ou infirmières. Il serait opportun d’en parler maintenant pour que la Loi 21 sur la Laïcité en soit plus complète. Plus tard, il sera peut-être trop tard, et d’évidence plus laborieux.

Au fait, permettre aux médecins et infirmières de porter de tels signes constituerait un accommodement religieux, un privilège accordé aux religions, un avantage qui bénéficie à certain(e)s employé(e)s au détriment des autres. Ces accommodements religieux constituent forcément des entorses à la neutralité religieuse.

Ceux qui demandent aujourd’hui des accommodements de nature religieuse sont considérés par leurs communautés respectives comme des fanatiques. En leur accordant ce qu’ils demandent, nous ne servons pas le progrès de notre société, mais favorisons tout au contraire un fondamentalisme religieux qui freine son évolution.

Venons-en au cœur du problème, avec quelques exemples pour bien l’illustrer :

Dans un hôpital, des malades parfois ou souvent vulnérables, n’ont pas à subir des malaises devant des soignants qui se doivent d’être là pour le confort du patient. […]

Imaginez un homme mourant, qui aurait été, dans sa jeunesse, violé par un prêtre pédophile et qui voit arriver à son chevet un prêtre à col romain et crucifix, pour lui demander s’il veut les derniers sacrements ? Il y aura certes un malaise, et peut être plus…

Imaginons une musulmane hospitalisée qui a été battue par son père parce qu’elle ne voulait pas porter le voile et qui voit arriver, pour prendre soin d’elle, une infirmière ou une femme médecin voilée, quelle sera sa réaction ?

Parce que athée, mon beau-père avait demandé qu’advenant son hospitalisation de ne pas avoir de prêtre à son chevet. Or, l’aumônier de l’hôpital s’est présenté pour lui donner les derniers sacrements. Il était mourant, ne pouvant même plus faire signe de refus…

Les signes ostentatoires religieux ont comme signification ostensible une doctrine par-delà même notre seule et commune humanité. Ils sont l’image visible d’un intégrisme religieux.

Mme Richard répond très efficacement au jeu de victimisation que jouent certains apologistes religieux dans le but de dénigrer la laïcité :

Prétendre qu’une employée qui travaille pour l’État et qui ne veut pas enlever son signe religieux ostentatoire est renvoyée est tout à fait incongru, car c’est elle-même qui s’exclut en choisissant sa religion plutôt que son travail. Si quelqu’un considère qu’il ne peut obéir à des règlements établis, il lui revient de faire un choix entre ses convictions religieuses et ses obligations professionnelles.

La tolérance absolue n’est pas une vertu :

Si la tolérance est louable, une tolérance de l’intolérable peut facilement s’apparenter à une démission. Le signe religieux est, quant à lui, inapproprié sur le vêtement d’un fonctionnaire, car ce signe n’est pas « propre » à sa fonction. […]

La société de demain sera soit théocratique, soit laïque. Pour le bien des générations futures, il nous faut prendre nos responsabilités sans quoi elles nous taxeront d’être retournés au Moyen Âge et elles auront raison. […]

Accorder des accommodements religieux favorise le développement d’un communautarisme qui dissimulerait des visées intégristes et fondamentalistes. Parler au nom de Dieu c’est de l’usurpation. L’accepter c’est se rendre complice du mensonge.

Pour conclure, Mme Richard nous rappelle notre devoir de résister à la vague d’obscurantisme religieux qui déferle actuellement sur le monde :

Le fondement de toutes les religions repose sur un endoctrinement d’origine strictement humaine dont les préceptes sont erronés et forcément mensongers. Lorsque nous consentons des accommodements aux religions ou à leurs membres et que nous cautionnons d’une manière ou d’une autre, nous nous rendons complices des erreurs et des mensonges.

Une prise de conscience s’impose.

Prochain blogue : For Secularism in Hospitals

Children’s Rights Before Teachers’

Opponents of Quebec’s Bill 21 Neglect the Rights of Children

2019-04-27

A recent article in the Montreal newspaper Le Devoir explains eloquently the importance of banning religious symbols worn by teachers.

Sommaire en français Un récent texte de Christian Rioux dans Le Devoir explique de façon éloquente l’importance d’interdire les signes religieux portés par les enseignants.

This blog is inspired by a recent article by Christian Rioux, published in the Montreal newspaper Le Devoir on 2019-04-26, entitled « Les enfants d’abord » or “Children first of all.” I will add a few personal comments, but mainly I will just translate several key passages of this excellent article, which eloquently explains the importance of banning religious symbols worn by teachers. Rioux begins:

“Do you believe in God?” The question comes sometimes from a little blond boy seated at the back of the class. Or, it may come from a little girl, shy and somewhat unsure of herself, sitting in the first row. How many times has the teacher been asked this question? Countless times. But each time, her response is the same: “It’s really not important what I believe.”

The important thing is to bring the child back to the lesson in progress. To say to him or her that some are believers and some are not. For the Québécoise teacher I am talking about here—and she is no exception to the rule, far from it—the very idea of revealing her personal religious convictions or lack thereof would have been indecent, a lack of respect for the young minds whose education was entrusted to her.

Remember, Quebec’s Draft Bill 21, if adopted, will ban religious symbols worn by police, judges, prosecutors and prison guards, as well as teachers in the public school system. After quoting a moving 1959 letter from Louis Germain to his former pupil Albert Camus (I encourage you to read Rioux’ original article if you read French), Rioux continues:

For Louis Germain, the secular schoolteacher’s duties came before his or her rights. The fact that the current debate about secularism has been perverted by a concentration on the rights of adults shows just how little consideration we give to children.

Is it really necessary to remind everyone that the authority of a judge, a policeman or policewoman or a prison guard is exercised over persons who are adults and fully vaccinated? What make the teacher’s authority so much more important is that it is applied to children whose innocence and intellectual vulnerability should motivate the teacher to exercise a great deal of restraint. In fact, everywhere where secularism exists, it is the public school teacher who is its greatest icon, much more so than judges, police or prison guards.

Indeed, the rôle of a teacher is so important.

The anti-secularists (and even some hypocrites who claim to be secularists) oppose Quebec’s Draft Bill 21 by claiming that it discriminates against Muslims. This is complete nonsense. As Rioux explains, banning religious symbols worn by teachers will have a very beneficial effect especially for Muslims, as well as for everyone else. Here is how Rioux expresses it:

…the pupil who will be the most uncomfortable at the sight of a teacher wearing an Islamic veil will not be the little Catholic child, or the child from a family with no religion. On the contrary, it will be the little Muslim (and his or her parents) who will never feel completely free when confronted by a teacher who so blatantly and ostentatiously flaunts her religious beliefs.

In reality, allowing religious symbols in public schools shows a great deal of contempt for the rights of children:

The lack of consideration which some show for children in the current debate is an indicator of how it has become fashionable for schools to be completely open and exposed to anything and everything. Schools in which lobbies and ideologies, beliefs and opinions are allowed to parade around without limit. But for schools to play their proper role, they must be a refuge where it is possible to step back and take a global view of things.

Children’s rights must take precedence over those of teachers. Schools exist for the education of pupils and students. Teachers are there to serve that purpose and their behaviour must not be allowed to impinge upon the rights of the pupils and student who are the reason schools exist. Most teachers understand this. But opponents of secularism would have us forget it; they would allow teachers and all other public servants to proselytize while on the job.

Next blog: Plaidoyer pour la laïcité dans les hôpitaux

The American Model of “Secularism” is 18^th Century Pre-secularism

2019-04-07

In this blog I compare the American model of so-called secularism, as expressed in the First Amendment, with republican secular legislation in two other countries: France and Mexico.

Sommaire en français Dans ce blogue je considère les différences entre le modèle américain de sécularisme et le modèle de laïcité dans deux autres pays : la France et le Mexique.

As explained in my previous blog “The US Constitution is Not Secular,” the First Amendment of the US Constitution does not implement secularism but rather religious neutrality (a.k.a. nonsectarianism) which is a component of secularism but is very incomplete because it lacks the essential secular principle of separation between religions and State. Although Thomas Jefferson interpreted the Amendment as implementing a “wall of separation of church and state” in an 1802 letter to Danbury Baptists, that principle is not encoded in the text of the Amendment.

This exaggerated support for freedom of religion is a threat to other freedoms and constitutes an unwarranted religious privilege.

There is another aspect of the First Amendment to the US Constitution which is problematic: it gives apparently absolute value to freedom of religion. This is excessive. No rights are ever absolute because different people’s rights inevitably come into conflict from time to time. This is precisely what happens in state institutions, where the freedom of public servants must not be absolute because it may conflict with rights of users of public services. This exaggerated support for freedom of religion is a threat to other freedoms and constitutes an unwarranted religious privilege.

In other words, the First Amendment implements an incomplete form of secularism—I would call it pre-secularism or pseudosecularism—and gives exaggerated priority to religious freedom over other freedoms. It was ratified in 1791, over two centuries ago, and is a product of its time. The nonsectarianism which it enacts was certainly very progressive at the time, because most European states were monarchies with an official State religion. However, since then, other countries have done better.

France

Consider France. Below are a few examples of French legislation.

Déclaration des droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen, 1789 (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789)
Article 10: « Nul ne doit être inquiété pour ses opinions, même religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l’ordre public établi par la loi. »
(“No one may be disturbed because of his/her opinions, even religious, provided that their expression does not trouble public order as established by law.”)
Loi de séparation des Églises et de l’État, 1905 (Law of Separation between Churches and the State)
- Article 1: « La République assure la liberté de conscience. Elle garantit le libre exercice des cultes sous les seules restrictions édictées ci-après dans l’intérêt de l’ordre public. » (“The Republic guarantees freedom of conscience. It guarantees the free exercise of religion, subject only to those restrictions enacted below in the interest of public order.”)
- Article 2: « La République ne reconnaît, ne salarie ni ne subventionne aucun culte.[…] » (“The Republic does not recognize, pay or subsidize any religion.”)
- Article 28: « Il est interdit, à l’avenir, d’élever ou d’apposer aucun signe ou emblème religieux sur les monuments publics ou en quelque emplacement public que ce soit, à l’exception des édifices servant au culte, des terrains de sépulture dans les cimetières, des monuments funéraires, ainsi que des musées ou expositions. » (“It is forbidden, in the future, to raise or affix any religious symbols or emblems on public monuments or in any public place whatsoever, with the exception of the buildings used for worship, burial grounds in cemeteries, funerary monuments, as well as museums or exhibitions.”)
Constitution of 1958 « La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. » (“France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social republic.”)
Loi n° 83-634 de 1983 sur les droits et obligations des fonctionnaires (“1983 Law on the Rights and Obligations of Public Servants”) « Le fonctionnaire exerce ses fonctions dans le respect du principe de laïcité. » (“The public servant carries out his or her duties in accordance with the principle of secularism.”)

It should be emphasized that although the French words « laïque » and « laïcité » are often translated into English as “secular” and “secularism” respectively, the translation is inaccurate because there is no strict equivalent in English. The French words imply a more complete definition, including the important principle of separation between religions and State, a principle which is often missing when the English words are used. To be more accurate, I would translate « laïcité » into English as “republican secularism.”

A number of observations about the legislation cited above:

The 1789 declaration protects freedom of religion, as does the American First Amendment, but puts a reasonable and necessary condition on that freedom. Thus, although contemporary with the First Amendment, the declaration is better because it is more nuanced, avoiding absolutist language.
In the 1905 law—which is arguably the most important secular legislation in human history—the separation principle is so central that it is the title. Notice that the word « Églises » is plural, thus implying that all religions are separated from the State.
The Constitution of 1958 declares that the republic is « laïque », thus further emphasizing the separation principle.
The 1983 law requires that public servants respect the principle of « laïcité ». In practice, this implies, among other things, that they must not display obvious religious symbols.

[…] support for republican secularism is very strong among the French, just as it is among Quebecers.

A recent poll in France found that some 87% of the French approve of the 1905 law. The same poll also found that 75% of French Muslims support the ban on the Islamic veil (of course all religious symbols are banned) worn by public servants and 66% of Muslims oppose any modification of the 1905 law. Thus, support for republican secularism is very strong among the French, just as it is among Quebecers.

Mexico

As another example, let us consider the Mexican Constitution of 1917.

In the Constitution of 1917, the word „laico” or „laica” is mentioned four times, in articles 30, 40, 115 and 122. The text specifies that public education „se mantendrá por completo ajena a cualquier doctrina religiosa” (“will remain completely alien to any religious doctrine”). In reference to the national government, the Constitution states that it will be „una República representativa, democrática, laica y federal” (“a representative, democratic, secular and federal Republic”). The Constitution further declares that the governments of the various states and of Mexico City will each be „republicano, representativo, democrático, laico” (“republican, representative, democratic, secular”).

It is my understanding that, when used in a political context, the Spanish words „laico” and „laica” have the same meaning as « laïque » in French: that is, republican secularism, including the essential principle of separation between religions and State.

[…] the American model of so-called secularism is an incomplete, somewhat antiquated, 18^th century version. […] The ignorance and chauvinism of those who hold dogmatically to the American model are reactionary and regressive.

The bottom line is this: the American model of so-called secularism is an incomplete, somewhat antiquated, 18^th century version. It was a step forward at the time. But today, although it obviously remains superior to all forms of theocracy, it is nevertheless inferior to other, more complete forms of secularism. Furthermore, if the American model is falsely vaunted as superior to those others, the result is to impede secularism by holding it back to an outdated version. This is precisely what is happening in reaction to efforts by Quebec to apply secular measures in that province. Currently, Draft Bill 21 proposed by the Quebec government is the target of inflammatory, toxic and even hateful attacks from the mainstream media, and especially English-language media. The ignorance and chauvinism of those who hold dogmatically to the American model are reactionary and regressive. Journalists, politicians and commentators in the Anglo-American world, especially in English Canada and in the USA, need to learn a little humility.

Next blog: La CCDP endosse la maltraitance religieuse des fillettes

The CAQ’s Secularism Bill is a Positive Step Forward

2019-04-03, updated 2019-04-17

The text below is an extended version of my article published on the CBC News website: OPINION | The CAQ’s secularism bill is a positive step forward. It is reproduced here with the permission of CBC.

Sommaire en français Le texte ci-dessous est une version plus étoffée de mon article publié sur le site CBC News : OPINION | The CAQ’s secularism bill is a positive step forward (Opinion : Le projet de loi laïque de la CAQ constitue une avancée positive.) Il paraît ici avec la permission de CBC.

I, like the majority of Quebecers, am very happy that the Quebec government, elected in October 2018, has decided, via Draft Bill 21, to adopt secularism as official policy, including banning religious symbols worn by public servants in positions of authority. This is good news, but you would not think so by reading many mainstream media, especially the English-language media. What you see there is a total failure–or worse, a stubborn and bigoted refusal–to understand a very simple principle: that civil servants on duty must be neutral.

In fact the Bill does not go far enough. It should apply to all public servants, not just some, and it should contain no exemptions. But at least it goes part way.

The Bill will help to protect the freedom of conscience of at least some users of public services, and especially pupils in public schools, by making sure that they are not subjected to unnecessary and unwelcome displays of religious publicity.

Bill 21 does not exclude religious believers from government jobs. Rather, it excludes only their religious symbols, and only if they work for the government, and only while on the job.

Bill 21 does not in any way restrict freedom of religion. Rather it imposes a small, reasonable restriction on freedom of expression while the government employee is on the job. Quebec already has legislation which forbids such employees from wearing partisan political symbols on the job. Bill 21 extends this to partisan religious symbols, as indeed it should. After all, religions are often very political.

Bill 21 does not discriminate on the basis of religion. It applies to all religions.

In particular, Bill 21 does not discriminate against Muslims as some falsely claim. The veil worn by some Muslim women is not representative of Islam in general, but only of a very fundamentalist and highly politicized form of that religion. Decades ago in most Muslim-majority countries, the veil was worn by very few women, mainly older women from the countryside or small towns, but now it has become much more widespread. Why is that? We all know why: because Islamists, falsely claiming to represent Muslims in general, have undertaken a massive propaganda campaign to promote the wearing of the veil, to normalize its presence anywhere and everywhere, to occupy territory by using veiled women as proxies for their politico-religious ideology.

Many immigrants came to Canada from Muslim-majority countries because they want to live in a more secular country and because they want to escape the growing, toxic influence of Islamism. Here in Quebec, for example, the Quebec Association of North Africans for Secularism (AQNAL) supports Bill 21 and opposes the negative stereotype of Muslims as always displaying their religion in ostentatious ways, an image promoted by Islamists for their own purposes.

Women who insist on wearing the veil here in non-Muslims countries such as Quebec and Canada are participating in that extreme right-wing campaign whether they realize it or not. Meanwhile, women in countries such as Iran risk arrest, corporal punishment or prison when they defy the obligation to wear the veil, which is a symbol of the servitude of women. All we ask, here is Quebec, is that veiled women remove their veil for the duration of their work shift if they work in the public service. By banning religious symbols in the workplace, we create a space of freedom in which ideologues such as Islamists cannot force their ideology on others.

Bill 21 does not deny employment to anyone. Rather, it requires that employees avoid religious symbols while working. In fact, it does not even do that completely, because there is an exemption–a so-called grandfather clause–for those who are already employed when the law goes into effect. This is unfortunate, because it means that there will be serious inequalities among employees, some having an exemption and some not. It is also bad because it means that people who are served by exempted employees, or children who are taught by exempted teachers, with be captive audiences for partisan religious displays–and that violates their freedom of conscience.

We have all heard the argument that, say, a teacher wearing a hijab or crucifix or other symbol is not necessarily trying to convert anyone. But the intentions of the wearer are irrelevant. The symbol is a form of passive publicity, regardless of what the person wearing it thinks. Why do you think companies purchase advertising to display their products on billboards or buses or television? Because it works, because it helps promote their products.

Some opponents of Bill 21 claim that it will cause a massive exodus of qualified workers from Quebec. That is called blackmail, a rather manipulative and mean-spirited tactic. I expect that the vast majority will comply with the legislation. As for the few who will not, what are we to think of a person who considers that they have a “right” to practice their religion even on the job? Religion should be a private matter. If an individual refuses to recognize that public service employees have a duty to behave with a certain degree of reserve and neutrality while on the job, then I question whether that individual is fully qualified for the position. At any rate, it is important that legislation such as Bill 21 be enacted as soon as possible as a preventive measure, before the number of persons affected grows, as it surely will in the near future given the privileges which religions currently enjoy.

Even worse, some opponents of Bill 21 make outrageous accusations against secularists and even against Quebecers in general (as the majority support the Bill), even attempting to associate them with horrific acts of violence such as those which occurred at mosques in Quebec City and Christchurch. Those who make such brazen allegations reveal two things about themselves: (1) their arguments are so weak that they must lower themselves to slander; and (2) their hatred of Quebecers is so intense that they indulge in anti-Québécois racism.

In order for the Quebec State to be religiously neutral, it is not enough to remove symbols only from the buildings. And it is not enough to remove them only from employees. Both must be done. It is a very good thing that the CAQ has announced that it will remove the crucifix from the Salon bleu of the National Assembly as soon as Bill 21 is adopted. However that is not enough, Symbols worn by sitting MNAs should also be banned. Unfortunately Bill 21 does not do that, so we have a situation where the walls are neutral but not the people. Furthermore, teachers must comply with the ban, but whether or not classrooms have symbols is a decision left up to the school administration, so we may have situations where the teachers are neutral but the walls are not. The proposed legislation is imperfect. But without Bill 21 the situation is even worse, with no bans anywhere.

Bill 21 also bans face-coverings worn by public employees. Furthermore, it also bans users of public services from wearing face-coverings whenever identification or security concerns require that the face be visible, unless there are valid reasons related to health or handicap or if the face-covering is required for particular functions or tasks.

Probably the best aspect of Bill 21 is that it includes a good, precise definition of State secularism (i.e. “laïcité”) and then embeds that principle directly into the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That means that in future, this principle can be used to motivate and support future legislation extending the limited measures contained in the current Bill. In other words, Bill 21 sets the stage for future improvements.

Next blog: The US Constitution is Not Secular

Tobacco, Politics and Religion

2019-04-03

I draw an analogy among three types of restrictions: bans on tobacco use in some places, legislation restricting political displays in some contexts and Draft Bill 21 which puts some restrictions on religious symbols.

Sommaire en français Dans ce blogue je compare trois types de restrictions: les interdictions de fumer dans certains endroits, la législation limitant l’expression d’opinions politiques dans certains contextes et le Projet de loi 21 qui met certaines restrictions sur le port de signes religieux.

In many jurisdictions, the use of tobacco products is banned in certain places, for example, some workplaces. This means that smoking cigarettes or other tobacco products is forbidden there. It does not mean that people who smoke regularly may not enter there; they simply have to refrain from smoking in contexts where it is banned. This ban is about behaviour, not people. Certain behaviour—i.e. smoking—is banned, not certain people.

If a person defies the ban, would we blame the government or organization that imposed the ban? I doubt it. We would blame the person. The individual is responsible for his or her behaviour. If the ban is justified—by considerations of public health for example, and applies equally to all—then we must support it.

In Quebec, article 10 of the Loi sur la fonction publique (in English: Public Service Act) stipulates that:

10. A public servant shall be politically neutral in performing his duties.

This implies that the public servant must not display partisan political symbols or express partisan political opinions in the exercise of his or her duties. (In fact, the restriction is even stronger than that: see article 11 which imposes some duty of discretion even outside the workplace.) Does this mean that people who often wear such symbols, or who have political opinions, or certain political opinions, are excluded from employment in the public service? Of course not. It simply means that they must refrain from displaying or expressing those opinions while on the job. This restriction is about behaviour, not people. Article 12 of the same law states:

12. Nothing in this Act prohibits a public servant from being a member of a political party, attending a political meeting or making, in accordance with the law, a contribution to a political party or a local association of a political party or to a candidate in an election.

If a public servant on the job defies this rule by, for example, wearing a t-shirt with the slogan “Vote PQ” or “Andrew Sheer for PM” then would we blame the lawmakers for adopting such legislation? I doubt it. The law is reasonable and applies to everyone. The individual is responsible for his or her behaviour.

Draft Bill 21, proposed by the current CAQ government of Quebec (March 2019) would ban the wearing of religious symbols by civil servants in positions of authority. This is very similar to the ban on political displays, but considerably weaker because it does not apply to all civil servants and it has no effect outside the workplace. Religious symbols are highly partisan and often political in their implications. It is reasonable to put restrictions on their display by public servants, similar to current restrictions on political expression. The ban does not exclude anyone from public service based on their religious beliefs or affiliation. It applies to all religions. The ban on religious symbols is about behaviour, not people.

And yet, anti-secularists are up in arms about Draft Bill 21, accusing the CAQ of all sorts of horrible intentions. Why is this? The answer is obvious. Religions have traditionally been granted enormous privileges in many societies, including Canada at all levels of government, and people are so used to those privileges that they are not even aware of them. They take them for granted. And the religious themselves, when their privileges are challenged, arrogantly claim that their “rights” are under attack. Bullshit. Freedom of religion must not have priority over all other freedoms. Members of the public who go to government offices for various services, as well as children who attend public schools, have a right to services and education which do not involve partisan symbols shoved in their faces by the employee or teacher who provides the service.

If an individual violates the law, that individual is responsible for his or her behaviour. The State has no obligation to accommodate the religious beliefs or practises of public servants while they are on the job. The State has a duty to provide services in a politically and religiously neutral manner. The State employee has a duty to avoid partisan political or religious displays while on the job. What employees do off the job is their own business.

The proposed Bill 21 is simply a reasonable extension, and a rather modest and weak extension at that, of the existing Public Service Act. It does not go far enough—it should apply to all civil servants—but it is a good step in the right direction.

Next blog: The CAQ’s Secularism Bill is a Positive Step Forward

Quebec’s Draft Bill 21 Implements State Secularism

2019-03-28
Last modification: 2019-03-29 at 08:15, added third point under bad news.

A quick overview of Draft Bill 21, tabled today by the Quebec government.

Sommaire en français Un bref résumé du projet de loi 21, déposé aujourd’hui par le gouvernement du Québec.

Keeping its promise to pass significant secular legislation, today the Quebec government of the CAQ (Coalition Avenir Québec) tabled Draft Bill 21 which implements State secularism. This legislation has been anticipated since the CAQ was elected in October 2018. Below is a list of the main provisions of the proposed legislation. I am not a lawyer, so I may misinterpret some of the details, in which case I will correct this summary as soon as possible.

The Bill includes a coherent four-part definition State secularism:

Separation between the State and religions;
Religious neutrality of the State;
Equality of all citizens, whether male of female; and
Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

The good news:

Today as it tabled the Draft Bill, the government also tabled a motion to remove that notorious crucifix, currently hanging above the speaker’s chair in the Salon bleu of the National Assembly, after the Bill is passed. The Assembly passed the motion unanimously. Excellent news.
The Bill adds the principle of State secularism to the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, thus giving it near-constitutional status.
The fact that both religion-State separation and religious neutrality are listed in the Bill’s definition of secularism indicates that the authors of the legislation understand the important distinction between these two aspects: i.e. that neutrality alone is inadequate without separation.
The Bill bans the wearing of religious symbols by public servants (while on duty) in position of authority, including teachers in public schools. It would be preferable to ban religious symbols for all public servants, including all employees of public schools and childcare centres, but the Bill’s partial ban is a good first step.
The Bill bans the wearing of face-coverings by public servants (while on duty) in general.
The Bill bans the wearing of face-coverings by users of public services if visibility of the face is necessary for reasons of identification or security. Exceptions are allowed for reasons of health or handicap or if the face-covering is required for particular functions or tasks.
No accommodation may be allowed, i.e. no exceptions to the bans on religious symbols or face-coverings, for reasons other than those stated in the Bill. In other words, no religious accommodation.

And some bad news:

Draft Bill 21 has a so-called grandfather clause which grants an exemption to the religious symbol ban for those employees already working in the public service on the date the Bill is adopted. This is unfortunate, as it will lead to obvious inequalities, with some public servants being granted the privilege of wearing religious symbols and others not. Fortunately, this exemption is lost if the employee transfers from one job position to another, thus imposing a certain limitation.
As mentioned above, the religious symbol ban does not apply to all public servants. In particular, it does not apply to all employees of public schools (only to teachers, principals and vice-principals), nor does it apply to childcare centres.
The Bill does not ban religious symbols worn by MNAs (Members of National Assembly). This is inconsistent with removal of the crucifix from the legislature.

In summary, Draft Bill 21 is certainly incomplete, but it takes significant steps towards implementing State secularism in Quebec. A completely secular State would ban the wearing of religious symbols by all its employees. But the ban on at least those in authority indicates that the Bill’s authors understand that removing such symbols from buildings is not enough. Both State installations and State employees must display a neutral appearance; it would be inconsistent to insist on one without the other. Indeed, failing to ban the wearing of religious symbols amounts to granting a religious privilege—the privilege of indulging in religious advertising while on the job—and constitutes a form of discrimination against atheists, other non-believers and those believers who have no intention of wearing an obvious symbol.

Furthermore, a complete secular program would also involve several other measures not mentioned in the Bill. For example: the Ethics and Religious Culture program should be abolished; all public funding to private schools, many of which are religious, should be cut; all fiscal advantages granted to religious institutions must be abolished; etc. However, the fact that Draft Bill 21 includes a coherent definition of secularism and adds the principle of secularism to the Quebec Charter is reason for optimism, because that principle may be used to support future legislation extending the limited measures contained in the current Bill.

The Quebec population strongly supports secularism, but many mainstream media, especially the English-language media, are virulently opposed. All three major federal political parties immediately made exaggerated statements about how bad this legislation is. They are of course wrong, as all three are simply anti-secular and support religious privileges. For all its shortcomings, this Draft Bill 21 is a very good step forward for secularism in Quebec. The CAQ government is to be congratulated for having the courage to go ahead with it, in spite of the overwhelming anti-secular propaganda which often sinks to the level of defaming anyone who supports it. The next few weeks and months promise to be very turbulent.

Next blog: Tobacco, Politics and Religion

An Open Letter to the Council of Canadians

2019-02-12 Epilogue ajouté le 2019-02-13

In this blog, I respond to an article which appears on the website and in a bulletin of the Council of Canadians. The article, which apparently represents the position of the Council, associates the massacre of January 29^th 2017 with so-called “Islamophobia,” “racism” and “white supremacy” and exploits the massacre in order to denigrate secularism and vilify those who support it.

Sommaire en français Je répond un article paru récemment sur le site web et dans un bulletin du Conseil des Canadiens (Council of Canadians). Ce texte, qui représente apparemment la position du Conseil, associe le massacre du 19 janvier 2017 aux soi-disant « islamophobie », « racisme » et « suprémacisme blanc » et instrumentalise cet événement pour dénigrer la laïcité et diaboliser ceux et celles qui l’appuient.

Your email bulletin of January 30^th 2019, contained the following article by Rachel Small: Commemorating the second anniversary of the Quebec City Mosque attack.

The content of Small’s article is dishonest and extremely tendentious. It makes repeated use of the unacceptable expression “Islamophobia” whose purpose is to stifle legitimate criticism of both Islam and Islamism. The fact that Canada’s parliament was manipulated into adopting a motion (M-103) endorsing this concept is no excuse. Progressives have a duty to reject its use. To fear a religion, especially a monotheism such as Islam or Christianity, is not an irrational “phobia” but rather a sane and healthy response to danger. The crime committed by the assassin of January 29^th 2017 was not his fear, but rather where he directed it — at innocent individuals — and how he expressed it — with murderous violence. We certainly do NOT need to fight against “Islamophobia”; rather we must encourage rational discussion and criticism of religion while directing that criticism first and foremost against ideologies (rather than against human beings) and against censorship of debate.

Even worse is the article’s conflation of religion and race. Race has absolutely nothing to do with the event. Rather, it involved religion which is completely distinct from race. Small’s evocation of “white supremacy” is completely irrelevant and so misleading as to be a bald-faced lie. The misuse of this expression is an insult to the many blacks, Jews and others who have indeed been persecuted because of that ideology, especially in the USA. Currently, white supremacism is very marginal here in Canada. However, when it did have a strong presence, when the KKK had many Canadian chapters, it was virulently anti-Catholic and anti-Quebec and engaged in acts of terrorism against French-language churches and schools. The use of “white supremacy” to characterize the motives of the 2017 mosque killer is ahistorical and an insult to all Québécois.

Small’s mention of “decades of wars against Muslim-majority countries, state policy which has normalized the killing of millions of Muslims” is particularly inappropriate. Need I remind her that we are talking about a crime which occurred here, in this country, not elsewhere? If Small wishes to complain about the foreign policy of the USA, the UK or any other country, then I suggest she take her complaint to the appropriate government instead of trying to dump the blame on someone in Quebec City.

The tendentious nature of Small’s article reaches a paroxysm when she approvingly links to two other very revealing documents: The article by Jasmin Zine in The Conversation, which has published several diatribes imbued with anti-Québécois prejudice, repeats and deepens Small’s dishonest assertions. The text by Toula Drimonis in the National Observer uses the all-too-familiar false accusation of “far-right” (and again “white nationalist”!) to slur the secularism measures proposed by the newly-elected CAQ. Both Zine and Drimonis manifest a total ignorance of secularism, in particular republican secularism (laïcité).

Si la Charte de la laïcité avait été adoptée en 2014, si les partisans de cette Charte n’avaient pas été si massivement diabolisés et ciblés par des fausses accusations diffamatoires, si la population québécoise n’avait pas été si complètement abandonnée par ses chefs politiques après la prise du pouvoir par le PLQ en avril 2014, alors le massacre du 29 janvier 2017 n’aurait probablement jamais eu lieu.

Quebec has legislation which forbids public servants from wearing partisan political symbols while on the job, an eminently judicious measure. It is both reasonable and necessary to extend this ban to religious symbols, given that religions are inevitably political when they insinuate themselves into state institutions. Both the Charter of Secularism proposed by the PQ government in 2013-2014 and the measures announced by the new CAQ government are laudable efforts which progressives have a duty to support. Neither Zine nor Drimonis makes any attempt to address the solid arguments for a ban on such symbols. Their failure to do so represents journalistic incompetence. Secularism — including banning religious symbols in government — is not only the will of the people in Quebec, it is a noble and enlightened program which helps to reduce the risk of inter-religious conflict.

Regardless of the intentions of the authors of these three articles, the objective result is opposition to secularism, complacency towards political Islam and an endorsement of anti-Québécois racism.

If the Charter of Secularism had been adopted in 2014, if supporters of that Charter had not been so overwhelmingly demonized and slandered by false accusations, if the Quebec population had not been so totally abandoned by its political leaders after the Quebec Liberal Party took power in April 2014, then the massacre of January 29^th 2017 would, in all likelihood, not have occurred.

The perpetrator of the mosque shooting was a psychologically unstable individual who had been the target of bullying throughout his young life. He also feared Islamist terrorism. In addition, he, like all Quebeckers, had been for years inundated with a tsunami of propaganda condemning anyone who had even the slightest misgivings about Islam or Muslims with specious accusations of Islamophobia, racism, intolerance, xenophobia, far-right affinities and a plethora of other sins. In other words, Quebeckers were subject to incessant psychological intimidation by mainstream media and many politicians, denigrating them for having legitimate concerns, vilifying them for desiring a secular state, bullying them into silence and removing all hope of healthy debate. At some point, the young man snapped.

The attitude of Small, Zine and Drimonis is dangerous and can only increase the probability of future violent acts by stigmatizing necessary criticism of religion. If the Charter of Secularism had been adopted in 2014, if supporters of that Charter had not been so overwhelmingly demonized and slandered by false accusations, if the Quebec population had not been so totally abandoned by its political leaders after the Quebec Liberal Party took power in April 2014, then the massacre of January 29^th 2017 would, in all likelihood, not have occurred. I earnestly hope that the current Quebec government will keep its secularization promises because that will help repair some of the enormous damage done by irresponsible ideologues such as Small, Zine and Drimonis.

Epilogue

Pour faire contrepoids à la propagande anti-québécoise dénoncée ci-dessous, lisez donc ceci : Le calme dans la tempête, Le calme digne, le calme fort, Léolane Kemner, Journal de Montréal, 2019-02-13.

Next blog: Quebec’s Draft Bill 21 Implements State Secularism

Open Letter to TheConversation: An Organ of Anti-Quebec Propaganda

2018-12-29

In this blog I review a series of very dubious articles which appeared over the last year or so on the website TheConversation, all of which reveal a pronounced anti-Quebec prejudice.

Sommaire en français Dans ce blogue je passe en revue une série de textes très douteux, parus depuis un peu plus d’un an sur le site web TheConversation, qui révèlent tous un fort préjugé anti-Québéc.

Dear Editor of TheConversation,

When I first read the article “Québec’s fashion police: A century of telling women what not to wear” by Donica Belisle in TheConversation, I thought it was probably the worst article I had ever read. The article dishonestly attempts to equate two actions which are diametrically opposed: Catholic obscurantism in the past with Quebec’s current efforts to reduce the influence of religious obscurantism on public institutions. Belisle displays total ignorance of the secularism issue which is at the heart of this whole controversy. Furthermore, she denigrates Quebec society by painting it with the brush of the Catholic far-right, while ignoring the Islamist far-right which is far more active in Quebec.

My colleague Michel Lincourt has written to TheConversation in order to explain just how shoddy Donica Belisle’s article is. I certainly agree with his criticism. But I consider that he was in fact a little too kind. Firstly, he used the expression “Quebec bashing” to describe Belisle’s article, whereas in my opinion a stronger term, such as “anti-Quebec propaganda” or “anti-Québécois racism” for example, might be more appropriate. Secondly, Michel concentrates on one single article and thus perhaps did not notice a disturbing pattern of which TheConversation is guilty.

For my part, I did a search for “Quebec” on your website and discovered that Belisle’s article is not the worst. My search turned up a list of six other articles, all published within the last 15 months, which range in quality from very bad to atrocious. They all have much in common with Belisle’s writing. I list them here, with a brief summary of each.

Quebec’s niqab ban uses women’s bodies to bolster right-wing extremism, Yasmin Jiwani, 2017-10-23.
This screed condemns the previous Québec government’s Bill 62 while completely misunderstanding its import. A ban on both face-coverings in public services and religious symbols worn by public servants would be an excellent idea, but the Bill 62 did NOT do that. It did not enact religious neutrality—and even less secularism. It simply pretended to ban face-coverings while legislating exceptions which made the ban extremely weak. The purpose was not “to bolster right-wing extremism” as Jiwani claims in her paranoid title. The Bill was a cynical attempt by the Quebec Liberal Party to pretend to satisfy the Québécois’ overwhelming desire for secularism while doing practically nothing. But even such an impotent law was too much for some, such as Jiwani, who raves about the “ultra-right” in Quebec. The only far-right in Québec is constituted by those who oppose secularism by dishonestly and grossly misrepresenting it.
The link between Quebec’s niqab law and its sovereignty quest, Efe Peker, 2017-10-29.
The title’s obvious purpose is to frighten the reader by brandishing the boogeyman of “sovereignty.” Peker then starts by reassuring the reader that he is not “old-stock Quebecois” because, apparently, the opinion of such a person cannot be trusted. That sounds like racism to me. Peker employs the tendentious term “Catho-laïcité” instead of secularism or laïcité, thus revealing his prejudices once again. Enormous progress has been made in removing the Catholic symbols which were ubiquitous in Quebec only decades ago. The Charter of Secularism proposed in 2013-2014, an excellent initiative which Peker dismisses as a “mess,” would have applied to all religions, but Peker sees only religious discrimination.
Islamophobia in Québec: An ideology rooted in 20^th century imperialism, Frederick Burrill, 2017-12-10.
This article immediately loses all credibility because of its use of the loaded and unacceptable expression “Islamophobia.” To fear Islam (or any other religion) is not a phobia, rather it is simply due diligence. Burrill refers to the journalist and secularist Janette Bertrand as “feminist” where the quotes around the word clearly indicate his contempt for the former television personality, much loved by Québécois. Finally, Burrill’s attempt to denigrate contemporary Quebec secularism by rooting it in Catholic missionary propaganda of the early 20^th century is beyond ridiculous.
The hypocrisy of Québec’s move to ban religious dress, Richard Moon, 2018-10-22.
Moon repeats a theme we have already heard countless times from numerous anti-secularists: the observation that keeping the crucifix in the National Assembly is “hypocrisy.” But like all of them, he fails to recognize that removing the crucifix without banning religious symbols worn by public servants would also be hypocritical. The only correct solution is to do both: both government installations and public servants on duty must be free of obvious religious symbols. Moon fails to mention that secularist organizations in Quebec overwhelmingly supported both the Charter of Secularism in 2013-2014 and CAQ’s recent proposals while at the same time calling for removal of that crucifix.
Québec’s push to ban the hijab is ‘sexularism’, Yasmin Jiwani, 2018-11-05.
The very title of this article is insane. Jiwani denigrates CAQ for being “exclusionary” and throws in some fatuity about “the margins of race, religion and gender,” only one of which—religion—is relevant to the issue. Two things are clear however: (1) the author deliberately conflates race and religion, so that she can then throw false accusations of racism at secularists; and (2) she presents the wearing of the Islamist veil as a woman’s right of choice. Both are unacceptable deceptions practised regularly by Islamist ideologues. The latter is an example of their inversion strategy, i.e. presenting a sexist constraint (the veil) as a “right,” thus rebranding misogyny as pseudo-feminism.
Notwithstanding clause or not, Québec must accommodate its employees, Sébastien Parent, 2018-12-05.
Parent fails to distinguish between religious neutrality and secularism, as if they were synonyms. The former is a weak and incomplete subset of the latter, lacking the necessary separation between religions and state which is at the core of secularism. Parent repeatedly uses the misleading expression “reasonable accommodation” when in fact he is talking about religious accomodation. The former is a euphemism whose true meaning is the latter. The fallacious word “reasonable” distracts from the fact that accommodating religions is never acceptable. Making exceptions to laws in order to accommodate religious practices is to grant unacceptable privileges to religions. The fact that courts sometimes impose such accommodations simply shows that legislation needs to changed. In the meantime, the Quebec government will wisely use the notwithstanding clause to work around this problem.

Beyond the particularities of each of these seven articles, there are common threads running through the series:

A complete and wilful misunderstanding of secularism and a failure even to cover the relevant issues.
False accusations of discrimination against Muslims. The observation that bans on religious symbols will appear to target Muslims is a result of the fact that (a) Islamists claim to speak for all Muslims in general (they do not) while (b) these same Islamists promote the wearing of the misogynist veil in order to gain political influence. (Thanks largely to incompetent journalists, the strategy is working.)
An adulteration and inversion of feminism, as if the veil were a feminist choice, when in reality it is one of the worst expressions of misogyny ever invented.
Conflation of race (innate, immutable characteristics of the individual) with religion (a choice which can change).

Even more serious is what is lacking from this series of articles:

No attempt to understand republicanism and universalism and how they inform and support secularism.
No attempt to present the very solid arguments in favour of bans on religious symbols and face-coverings in public services, let alone even begin to refute them.
No attempt to present the views of secular, modern Muslims who support religious symbol bans.
No mention of the fact that Quebec already bans political symbols worn by public servants on duty. Extending this to religious symbols is an eminently reasonable and fair measure to take.
No acknowledgement whatsoever of the problematic nature of the expression “Islamophobia.”
No consideration of multiculturalism and the many relevant criticisms of that ideology which encourages isolation of communities.
No criticism whatsoever of the problems with Islam and Islamism. (Example: The extremely damaging taboo against apostasy.) Apparently only Christian—and preferably Catholic—obscurantism may be mentioned, let alone criticized.
Failure to recognize that Québécois are more advanced on the issue of secularism than Canadians outside Quebec and, especially, far more progressive that hostile media such as TheConversation.

I notice that your website’s motto is “Academic rigour, journalistic flair.” What a bad joke. Your series of articles about Quebec and secularism is a cesspool of journalistic incompetence, wilful ignorance and contempt for the Québécois, coupled with a disturbing tendency to repeat some of the classic elements of Islamist propaganda.

Next blog: Fourth Anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo Massacre