Chris Selley: Quebec's war on religion goes to a whole new level
Alberta’s use this month of the notwithstanding clause to shield three controversial laws from judicial scrutiny has more or less united the chattering classes in outrage. Even Amnesty International got in on the act , accusing Alberta of “violat(ing) the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“This is one of the most consequential actions our government will take during our time in office,” Premier Danielle Smith said of limiting “gender-affirming” care, including puberty-blockers and surgery, for children under 16; new parental-notification and -consent rules with respect to children who wish to “socially transition” at school; and limiting female-only sports to participants who were born female.
As ever, it will be interesting to compare the reaction now that Quebec has redeployed Section 33 in its own culture war — not against trans rights allegedly run amok, but against the most basic religious freedoms. Among other things, Bill 9, tabled Thursday in the National Assembly, does the following:
- bans prayer in public, without prior authorization;
- bans prayer in private, for example in prayer rooms provided in public institutions such as schools;
- bans students and staff at all levels of public education, including day care, from covering their faces at school — i.e., from wearing the niqab or burqa; and
- bans public institutions from offering only meals “based on a religious precept or tradition” — i.e., halal or kosher food.
And yes, it invokes the notwithstanding clause to protect itself from meddling judges. Somehow, though, that just never seems to be as controversial in the Rest of Canada when Quebec does it. Supporting trans rights is cool in a way that supporting religious rights isn’t.
Double standards aside, Quebec’s new legislation is fundamentally disreputable on several levels. If the province’s efforts to improve secularism have often seemed strangely deferential to Catholicism — the very religion that the Quiet Revolution rejected — Bill 9 privileges the elderly: Long-term care homes, unlike public schools, are exempt from the prayer-room prohibition.
It’s not hard to see why. According to Statistics Canada’s General Social Survey , in 2019, 58 per cent of Quebecers born between 1940 and 1959 were “affiliated” with a religion and that their faith was “somewhat or very important” to them. Just 28 per cent of those born between 1980 and 1999 said the same — the lowest in any region. And older people vote.
But the fact it’s easier to target younger Quebecers of faith doesn’t vindicate the effort. Quite the opposite, I would say.
It’s disreputable, too, because when Quebec politicians talk about “religion” in this context, roughly 97 per cent of the time they mean Muslims. (The other three per cent of the time they mean Jews.) Quebecers had every right to be perturbed this summer by the sight of scores of Muslims praying to Allah with the Notre-Dame Basilica in the background . That was an unambiguous provocation by the only religion that does that sort of thing in Canada.
If Quebec were honest, it would just make Bill 9 exclusively about Islam and leave the other religions alone. The notwithstanding clause would work just as well.
But that would be too honest, I suspect. Politicians would balk at seeing such specific discrimination laid out in black and white. They would insist on the tatty fig leaf of consistency. And so not only will Muslims who don’t protest-pray outside Christian landmarks now lose their spaces for quiet individual prayer, so will everyone else.
There is no reason to believe it will stop here. In provincial politics, there’s really no one to oppose the broader push to limit minority rights, both religious and linguistic. You might hope the Liberals would step up, but leader Pablo Rodriguez has argued (preposterously) that restrictions on civil servants’ attire brought “social peace” to the province — so there’s no help there. Plus, having briefly enjoyed a post-leadership bump in the polls, Rodriguez is now mired in vote-buying allegations with respect to his leadership campaign. (“What else did you expect from Pablo Rodriguez?” is a reasonable question to put to the party.)
The next obvious step will be to ban the niqab and burqa in all public places. Then attention will turn to the hijab, which students are still allowed to wear — for now. And anglophones and allophones still have lots of rights — maybe too many.
None of this is Ottawa’s doing. Indeed, there may not be anything anyone in Ottawa can say to affect this situation positively. But if federal politicians are going to pick and choose which rights to support and which to ignore, or where to support them, then they deserve to be judged just as harshly as the cowards in Quebec City targeting all religions for fear of one.
National Post cselley@postmedia.com
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Comments
Be the first to comment