Je n'osais même pas l'espérer, et pourtant c'est arrivé! Oh, je ne parle pas
du projet de loi sur la laïcité, que j'approuve aussi (la future loi n'est pas parfaite, mais elle est nécessaire). Je parle
du crucifix qui sera retiré du Salon bleu de l'Assemblée nationale. Et ça a été voté à l'unanimité en plus. C'est une excellente nouvelle, qui envoie un message clair: le Dieu des catholiques (hypothétique Dieu) n'a pas autorité, morale, spirituelle ou autre, sur la loi des hommes. Ça a l'air de rien, mais c'est un geste très important.
I agree that the state and all its laws, policies and services must be strictly secular in nature. But there is no need to restrict the religious freedom of those people hired to administer those laws, policies and services. The two are conceptually different and completely separate. Quebec's new law offends the Charter and Quebec's own Human Rights Code and is rightly viewed as discriminatory. Its explicit override of those human rights protections is appalling.
ReplyDeleteThey have to be secular in nature and in appearance too, as there needs to be justice AND appearance of justice. When you're in a position of coercive power, you should not display an ideological bias of any kind, especially not a religious one. And by the way similar laws exist elsewhere in the world (in some cases far stricter).
DeleteYes, I know Quebec is following the French model but in my opinion it is not an approach that will promote tolerance and diversity in a jurisdiction, but the opposite. Europe has already had one conflagration due to hatred of "the other." The world does not need another. The Canadian approach to multiculturalism is the new, tolerant model that fits the realities and needs of a modern, global world where immigration is a simple fact of life. Entire groups of people cannot be excluded from the central workforce like Quebec's law is attempting without there being some very ugly consequences in the long run.
ReplyDeleteWe will just have to agree to disagree on this topic, I guess!
Except that it's no group whatsoever is excluded from a workforce. Because these groups you mention are not monolithic and their members are not all practicing religions in their more devout or strict form. In fact anyone can work for the state in a position of coercive authority, whatever his or her background, providing they accept to abide to the principle of separation of Church and State.
Delete