Front Burner - The long fight over a "secular" Quebec

Episode Date: April 11, 2019

Yet another Quebec government is proposing a bill designed to affirm the province's religious neutrality. The Coalition Avenir Quebec's Bill 21 seeks to ban public workers in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols. Thousands of people have turned out in protest -- but the idea is popular amongst the province's francophone majority. CBC Montreal's Jonathan Montpetit explains the long fraught history of legislating secularism and reasonable accommodation in Quebec.

Hey there, I'm Kathleen Goltar and I have a confession to make. I am a true crime fanatic. I devour books and films and most of all true crime podcasts. But sometimes I just want to know more. I want to go deeper. And that's where my podcast Crime Story comes in. Every week I go behind the scenes with the creators of the best in true crime. I chat with the host of Scamanda, Teacher's Pet, Bone Valley, the list goes on. For the insider scoop, find Crime Story in your podcast app. This is a CBC Podcast. For years, men were disappearing from Toronto's gay village. I feel terrorized.

I'm Justin Lane. This season on Uncover. If we see this is happening, how can you not see this? They suspected a serial killer. And they were right. Police arrested 66-year-old Bruce MacArthur. But this wasn't the first time the village was targeted. You don't start killing at 66. You'd start killing when you're in your late teens or early 20s.

Uncover. The Village. Available now wherever you get your podcasts. You don't start killing at 66. You'd start killing when you're in your late teens or early 20s. Uncover. The Village. Available now wherever you get your podcasts. Hello, I'm Jamie Poisson. What you're hearing there are thousands of Montrealers protesting Quebec's latest attempt at a partial ban on religious symbols in the province. The Coalition Avenir Quebec's Bill 21 would prohibit public workers in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols. This includes police officers, government lawyers and teachers. The bill would also prevent regular people from getting public services if they don't uncover their faces.

It's discrimination. It's racist. The girl I see down the street, we're going to honestly tell her she can never aspire to be a teacher. It would lead to a very dangerous social gap between Quebecers. This debate has been going on for more than a decade in Quebec. And this is the fourth time a provincial government has taken a run at essentially legislating secularism. Because it's been so divisive. On one side, you have people who believe Quebec's unique culture

and history of secularism in government has to be protected from being subsumed by the rest of Anglo-Canada. And on the other, religious and cultural minorities within Quebec who have their own fears. I'm joined today by the CBC's Jonathan Montpetit. He's been covering this story for Montreal for a decade. This is Frontburner. decade. This is Frontburner. Jonathan, thank you so much for joining us today. Thanks so much for having me, Jamie.

So I want to start by asking you about one little plot point in this whole story. Back in 2007, a little town called Arrowville implemented a rule of their own against face covering. The sign says, welcome to Herroville, but for the town council, that welcome is conditional. What is the Arrowville Code of Conduct for those who might not remember? So the Arrowville Code of Conduct was this list of rules that it kind of publicized to any immigrants that were thinking of moving to this small town. This is a small town of like 1,300 people. It actually had no immigrants at the time, but it still felt the need to kind of warn any potential newcomers,

this is how we do things here. And the code of conduct included things like, you know, you shall not stone women. Here's an excerpt. We do not consider it normal to kill women by public stoning, to burn them alive, burn them with acid, or mutilate them through female circumcision. And there was even a section about the importance of Christmas trees. Every year we decorate the Christmas tree with balls and tinseling with some lights. This is normally called Christmas decoration or Christmas tree.

The standards published above are just a sample so the new arrivals to this territory can clearly identify with us before making their decision to move here. And it kind of became a signal of two, I guess, two things. On the one hand, a signal of two, I guess, two things. On the one hand, Irouville kind of became a shorthand for intolerance in Quebec. And it kind of happened in the middle of this reasonable accommodation crisis. Hardly a week goes by without somebody complaining about somebody else getting special treatment. Once it was teachers asking for paid leave for a religious holiday.

Once somebody at the driver's for paid leave for a religious holiday. Once somebody at the driver's permit office asked for a male rather than a female evaluator. I remember at the time, too, there was like this comedy skit that got a lot of play. Où sommes-nous exactement? Am I right about that? Yeah, yeah. So every year in Quebec, there's kind of a big year-end broadcast. And Aruville made an appearance in kind of like an Amityville horror take on it.

But on the other hand, after Aruville put out its code of conduct, there were a lot of other small towns that also put out or said, like, oh, we think that's actually a good idea. We want to do the same thing. And so, you know, on the one hand, it kind of became fun for people in Montreal to make fun of Aruville. But on the other hand, it actually spoke to very real anxieties that existed within the province. Reasonable accommodation is eroding our culture,

eroding our identity. We must defend our values. There's no room for reasonable accommodation. You mentioned these other towns that followed Huraville. What is the broader reaction in Quebec to what's happening at the time? Are people surprised by this? Yeah, so I think people were really surprised by it. And this kind of came after a long series of these very publicized issues of reasonable accommodation. So there was this big

story at the time about a sugar shack, Cabana Sur, you know, very popular spring activity in Quebec, and a tabloid newspaper got wind that one of these sugar shacks had made accommodations for Muslim clients, you know, offer them a menu that didn't have any pork on it. And then there was a dance space and they, you know, said, well, hey, look, on it. And then there was a dance space and they said, well, hey, look, if you guys want to pray on the dance space, go ahead. But that story kind of got blown out of proportion and then it kind of became like, oh my God, Quebec, we're sacrificing our values. Roque says the phone calls and emails they received were hateful.

They called us traitors. They said that we weren't true Quebecois. It's been horrible. Claudette says it's impossible for her to understand why people have reacted this way. We've changed the menu before to accommodate Jewish people and vegetarians, and there was never a problem with that.

And so there were a whole series of stories like this, and the Égouville kind of came at this critical moment. And, you know, I've spoken to people who were part of the Quebec government at the time, the Liberal government at the time, and they were thinking this was all going to go away. And when Érouville hit, they said,

oh, this is not going away. And so they decide to call this commission. They went to this sociologist, this very well-known sociologist by the name of Gérard Bouchard, and they go to this very well-known sociologist by the name of Gerard Bouchard, and they go to this really well-known philosopher, Charles Taylor, and they say, hey guys, can you take a look at reasonable accommodation in the province? The Bouchard-Taylor Commission spent three months listening to passionate and at times angry testimony. And

what do these guys find? What does the commission find? So they're kind of like two big conclusions that they come to. The first one, which you kind of tend to forget, is that they actually found that much of the sense of crisis was manufactured, was based on inaccurate reporting in the media, and it didn't accurately represent how Quebecers really, for the most part, engaged in accommodation fine, without any tension, without any, you know, impartial arbitration. So the way that the sugar shack story was covered, for example. Yeah, exactly. Because, you know, the media reports made it sound like, you know, right in the middle of, you know, of a Sunday activity that everybody was cleared off the dance floor so Muslims could pray. It actually wasn't the case.

The owners were quite surprised that this, you know, made front page news. The other really important conclusion that they came to is they said, well, there are kind of these two anxieties at play in Quebec society. One, there's this anxiety on the part of Francophone Quebecers. So Francophone Quebecers. So Francophone Quebecers, they're the majority in the province, but they're a minority in North America. They're surrounded by Anglophones everywhere. The survival of Francophone culture in Quebec is a very real source of anxiety, has been a source of anxiety for decades, and that anxiety hasn't gone away,

and indeed has been heightened by globalization. So you have that anxiety on the one hand. But on the other hand, within Quebec society, you have minorities, say immigrants, cultural, religious minorities, who themselves feel anxious about their own role within this Francophone majority culture. And so Bouchard-Taylor found that these two anxieties were quite pronounced and were kind of preventing a calmer social environment from taking hold in Quebec. And so they then issued a series of recommendations to say, well, you know, here are some things the government could do to kind of encourage more integration between the majority and minority cultures in the province. Its report makes 37 recommendations, among them, that official Quebec be secular, that the government make a better effort to combat racism

and promote what it calls interculturalism. And let's go through some of those recommendations. Okay. So there are two really important recommendations for what we're talking about today with Bill 21. The first recommendation says, okay, fine, Quebec is a secular place. Take the crucifix that hangs in the legislative chamber in Quebec City. You got to take it down, guys. Like, you can't say that we're a secular place if there's a crucifix that hangs in the room where we make our lives.

Right. This is the ultimate symbol, essentially. The ultimate symbol. Exactly. And then the other big recommendation that, you know, is probably the most famous part of the Bouchard-Taylor report. So they basically they struggled with this idea between open and more rigid version of secularism. They tried to find a balance and they said, well, look, maybe in order to kind of project state neutrality, we should put certain limits on what certain people in the public service can wear. So they said, look, if you exercise coercive authority, so if you're like a police officer or a judge or a prison guard, you shouldn't be seen wearing religious symbols. And that has become known

as the Bouchard-Taylor consensus or the Bouchard-Taylor compromise, which has become a reference point for basically all subsequent debates about secularism in Quebec. Okay. And so at the time that these recommendations drop, who's in charge of the province and what do they do? So the Liberals have a minority government at the time and the very first thing the day the report drops is they pass a motion, voted unanimously in the National Assembly not to touch the crucifix. Not so fast, says the Premier. The crucifix is about 350 years of history in Quebec that none of us are ever going to erase. After that, they draft the first of what will become

now the fourth attempt to legislate secularism in Quebec, and that happens in 2010. Basically, that very first bill proposes to, basically you have to have your face uncovered in order to give and receive public services in Quebec. Initially, the bill was really well received. This debate should not be about immigration or how accommodating Quebec needs to be. That's why Bill 94 works, because it safeguards our fundamental rights and freedoms

and respects our religious beliefs, no matter where they come from. But then the bill kind of got bogged down in parliamentary commissions and the bill died on the order sheet. The Liberals lost the 2012 election. The bill never made it to law. Okay, and then the Parti Québécois. Pauline Marois becomes premier of Quebec and they introduce a Charter of Values a couple of years later, right? In 2013. I think a lot of people have heard of the Charter of Values. What we do announce, it is the obligation for the state, for the government, for the institutional organizations that we announce the obligation to be neutral.

And so my understanding is that this went beyond the previous liberal legislation. And they're adding that public employees couldn't wear ostentatious religious symbols. By this we mean very visible, very obvious symbols. And how do they illustrate what they mean by ostentatious? So notoriously, there were these diagrams that were circulated by the Quebec government at the time, which were meant to helpfully indicate what size of a religious symbol would be acceptable or not. A poster showing what the province of Quebec has put out, showing the do's

and the don'ts, what you can and what you can't. Overt crosses or a hijab or a turban would not be acceptable, although earrings or smaller, less ostentatious, if I can put it that way, rings would be acceptable. Those diagrams really, I think, illustrated for people the controversial nature. And I think for a lot of people, the arbitrary nature of what was ostentatious and what wasn't. The diagram kind of became this flashpoint for criticism. And the term ostentatious was, you know, both ridiculed and criticized on the one hand and held up on the other as a sign of, you know, in the eyes of defenders of the bill, just how moderate it was. And so in terms of reception in the province,

is this received better or worse than the first attempt to legislate? I think it's received worse. Immediately when the Charter of Values came out, there was organized opposition. There were protests in the streets. You could not have a discussion anywhere in Quebec at that time without talking about the Charter values, whether you were for or whether you were against it. And why do you think that is? Is it sort of what you were mentioning before, the use of the diagrams that kind of went a step further than what had previously happened? I think so. I think it went a step further. And I think there is no exact figure of how many Quebecers wear the niqab, but it's not thought to be more

than, you know, 50 or 100. And it's probably much smaller than that. When you say you can't wear a hijab, well, a lot of Montrealers have seen somebody who wear a hijab. A lot of Montrealers know somebody who wears a hijab. And that's, you know, I'm just talking about the hijab, never mind the kippah or a turban. And then to suddenly say, well, you can't work in the public service. Now, the public service, you know, that's a fairly big employer in the province. And it wasn't just, you know, people at the driver's license counter. We were talking about, you know, teachers and professors and nurses and daycare workers. And so

suddenly the scope of the regulation was much larger. And I think that the consequences of it seemed so much more tangible than I think the first attempt. If they actually pass this law, will you take off the turban to keep your job? Absolutely not. I've spoken to my bosses at both the McGill University Health Centre and St. Mary's, and they would not want me to. If it got to the point where I had to choose

between my individual rights as a Sikh versus my staying in Quebec, there's no question I would leave. We'll be back in a second. At Franklin Templeton, we help you invest in companies that believe good enough is never far enough. Reach for better. Franklin Templeton Investments. Reach for better. Franklin Templeton Investments. So the Charter of Values, it never becomes law because the Parti Quebecois, they lose the election.

And then the provincial liberals get into power and they pass their own secularism bill banning face coverings when giving or receiving public services. But the courts block that bill. Then the Liberals, they lose to the CAQ last year. It's important for us that all people in an authority position don't wear a religious sign. And this brings us to today. The CAQ has proposed their own secularism bill. And how is it different from what's come before it? Bill? And how is it different from what's come before it? So in a way, what it does is it takes elements from both the previous liberal attempts and the previous PQ attempt. So from the liberal attempt, it takes this requirement that you give and receive services with your face uncovered.

From the PQ attempt, it takes the idea that certain members of the public service should not be allowed to wear religious symbols. It is narrower in scope than what the PQ proposed. So it takes up this Bouchard-Taylor, the idea that judges and police officers should not be allowed to wear religious symbols. But it adds this new category. And for the CEQ, that includes public school teachers and public school principals. And this has been one of the big flashpoints of concern, because this was not contained in the Bouchard-Taylor report. Both Bouchard and Taylor have come out against the bill, and I kind of singled out this provision in particular. That's particularly alarming.

When a government adopts this kind of legislation, they're spreading kind of messages. Well, there's something problematic about these people. I mean, otherwise we wouldn't have to make rules, right? So, and that joins up with all the existing prejudices and makes them worse. Okay. So for all those reasons, we have to combat this. And so I also understand that the CAQ has inserted this notwithstanding clause. Essentially, this would just push it through so that there can't be any core challenges, right? Correct.

So the argument here is that collective rights, the collective rights of Quebecers are more important in this particular instance than certain individual rights that are protected by the Charter. It's a very important day today. individual rights that are protected by the Charter. It's a very important day today. And what I want to try to do in the next few weeks is to unite as many Quebecers as possible. And I think it represents values, our values, and it's important. You know, this is the fourth time that a bill like this, although they're all a bit different, has been put forward. You know, what's your sense of why we keep seeing this again and again? Does it go back to what Bouchard and Taylor found all those years ago when they did their eponymous report?

I think so. I think specifically if you focus on that conclusion that they found about the anxiety over the survival of Francophone culture, I think that is probably the easiest way to understand why we keep feeling the need to legislate about secularism. The development of Francophone Quebecois culture is tied closely to this idea of emancipation from the Catholic Church, which happened in Quebec in the 1960s. And so this is kind of this part of this developmental narrative of Quebec society, that a modern Quebec society involves this very strict demarcation between church and state and that this is why Quebec is the way it is today. And so anything that kind of like hints at a blurring of that very clean line between church and state is seen as something very dangerous in the province and is seen as something that could potentially affect the vitality of Francophone culture here in the

province. It was also interesting for me to hear you mention that Charles Taylor was opposed to this bill. And so I want to talk about how you think times also may be changing here, because what's proposed in this bill doesn't seem all that different to me from what Charles Taylor found in his eponymous report all those years ago, that people in authority should be banned from wearing religious symbols. Yeah. So a few years ago, Charles Taylor surprised everybody by saying, you know what, actually, that's a compromise I no longer believe in. So he reversed his position on one of those on that particular key conclusion. The context, the social context has changed.

on that particular key conclusion, the context, the social context has changed. And one of the things that really strikes me is just how much language of systemic racism, language of cultural affirmation, these are no longer fringe concepts. You do also have this kind of questions about identity politics, the rise of the far right.

Hadil El-Masri worries that the Charter of Quebec Values There's kind of questions about identity politics, the rise of the far right. Hadil El-Masri worries that the Charter of Quebec Values will start the sort of anti-Muslim hysteria that has been seen elsewhere in the world. People feel a threat. They feel fear that it will happen here. Right. And of course, that manifested itself two years ago when we saw six men killed in a mosque in Quebec. Justice Francois Houat said when Bissonnette went to the mosque that night and began shooting, it was planned and premeditated, motivated by a prejudice and a visceral hatred for immigrants who are Muslim. Exactly. And I think part of the debate here is, can you legislate secularism in a way that doesn't slide into Islamophobia? And so a lot of the people who support the bill feel like they're being unfairly criticized as either racist or Islamophobic. And I think they're especially sensitive to this because one of the long-running

examples of so-called Quebec bashing is this idea that, you know, the Francophone Quebecers are backwards and racist and stuff like that. So people in the province are especially sensitive to any kind of accusations that this bill is an expression of intolerance towards minorities. Right. Now that the CAQ has introduced this bill, they have a majority in the Assembly and they're early on in their mandate. They've made it clear they'll invoke the notwithstanding clause as we talked about. So is it fair to say that this is the end of a decades long attempt by people who wanted to legislate secularism? So I personally doubt very much that the debate is over. So I think on the one hand, there's a legal question.

I think just because they've invoked the notwithstanding clause doesn't mean that the bill will be spared any kind of challenge. Let's say that the law is passed. Then there's the question of how it should be implemented. The public security minister has already raised the prospect of, you know, having police being called in to implement the law, court injunctions being used to force its implementation. You know, one of the biggest school boards in Montreal,

the Montreal English School Board, has said it has no plans of implementing the law. We're not just going to accept a discriminatory piece of legislation that infringes on the fundamental freedoms of our employees. So already we kind of see the battle lines, you know, shaping for the next confrontation. And, you know, these could give rise to very, very emotional scenes in the province. You know, let's just take the example of somebody who wears a hijab, who's a teacher in Montreal. Now, the law does provide for a grandfather clause so that they would not be forced to remove the hijab immediately.

But it only applies if they don't move positions. So, you know, so suddenly everyone who wears a hijab is locked into their position, can't move around for fear of losing the right to express their religious freedom. And these questions for the moment are theoretical, but once the bill becomes law, these are real people's lives who will have to negotiate these new regulations. Kids, they love me. They don't even notice that you have a veil. They just notice the person you are.

I will still go to work until it's really clear that we can't be wearing a veil while teaching, I will move. And so I think it's just premature to say, oh, that's it, you know, we passed the bill, and there, boom, you know, 15 years of debate, we've settled it. Jonathan, thank you so much. My pleasure, Jamie. So just to illustrate how divisive and rancorous this debate has become, a Montreal-area mayor has drawn a lot of fire over the last week for saying that Bill 21 is, quote,

ethnic cleansing, not with a gun, but with a law. It is racist. It is despicable. Premier Legault justifies the law by saying a majority of Quebecers support it. Tyranny of the majority to discriminate against minorities is exactly why liberal democracies have constitutions to guarantee minority rights. So far, Hampstead Mayor William Steinberg is rejecting calls to apologize, including from Quebec's Premier Francois Legault. That's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks for listening to FrontBurner.

For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts. It's 2011 and the Arab Spring is raging. A lesbian activist in Syria starts a blog. She names it Gay Girl in Damascus. Am I crazy? Maybe. As her profile grows, so does the danger. The object of the email was, please read this while sitting down. It's like a genie came out of the bottle and you can't put it back.

Gay Girl Gone. Available now.