The bill will not “endanger almost everyone’s religious freedom” because it does not seek to eliminate religion.
KARACHI: This is apropos Maheen A Rashidi’s article “A reason to clean up our house” (February 12). The writer has written on the Charter of Values — or Bill 60 — and what she has written is not only a misrepresentation of facts, in my opinion, but also an exaggeration of the potential implications of the bill. While she correctly highlights the clause “prohibiting public sector employees from wearing religious clothing on the job”, the subsequent links drawn between the Charter, which she believes will result in “legitimising intolerance”, are spurious at best. Contrary to what the writer writes, this bill will not “endanger almost everyone’s religious freedom” because it does not seek to eliminate religion from Quebec society. It merely seeks to limit the display of religious affiliations within governmental organisations so as to dissipate the notions of the government favouring one particular religious group over the other. In that, it seems to be inspired from a distinctly French notion of secularism. It must be remembered that such a version of secularism does not equate to a society without any religion and thus, the writer’s claim that the bill will “curtail all or any values/beliefs that have even remote religious connotations” is in no way representative of the truth.
The “homogenous society” that the writer refers to is not the ultimate aim of the Charter either. It espouses intraculturalist, as opposed to multiculturalist, values. The difference between the two is that the former recognises similarities, as well as differences, while the latter limits itself to mere recognition. Thus, what the bill seeks to do is integrate new and current immigrants into the society they already live in. Such an action is nothing to be critical of. While multiculturalism enables immigrants to stick to their own traditions, interculturalism encourages immigrants and locals to interact with each other’s cultures to facilitate dialogue. This seems to be the very “reasonable accommodation” that the writer laments the absence of. The phrase “Canadian multicultural experiment” is also telling. While Pierre Trudeau sought to impose this ‘experiment’ on Quebec back in the 1970s, the Quebecois have continued to resist actively and have always voiced their opposition to such a stance. This is partly because the Quebecois pride themselves on being a distinct nation and have thus resisted multiple attempts at being classified as Canadians. To say that this ‘experiment’ will, therefore, “suffer its worst setback” is not only ignoring that Quebec has never actually accepted this experiment but is also dismissive of the Quebecois claim to nationhood. Another point of contention is the writer’s claim “that Stephen Harper is eager to woo the white Canadians of the Prairies” and thus, it is possible that the “Charter of so-called Values will win the day in Quebec”. Firstly, the prairies refer to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, so to throw Quebec in there is misrepresentative of Canadian geography. Secondly, Harper has no say in the legislative assembly of Quebec. The writer also seems unfamiliar with the constitutional landscape of Canada.
The bill should be debated on its merits. To conflate the Quebecois with a political idea they have always opposed is unfair. To say “Canadian immigration policies are becoming non-inclusive” is also unwarranted. A quick look at the immigration policies of other developed countries reveals that Canada continues to be a reasonable prospect for settling down in. Preferable, however, as the writer rightly points out in her conclusion, would be to set one’s house in order to altogether remove the necessity of emigration.
Nabil Jafri
Published in The Express Tribune, February 14th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
