{"id":208630,"date":"2019-04-06T04:28:20","date_gmt":"2019-04-06T08:28:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=208630"},"modified":"2019-04-06T04:28:20","modified_gmt":"2019-04-06T08:28:20","slug":"gerard-bouchard-warns-quebec-government-against-perils-of-religious-symbols-ban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2019\/04\/06\/gerard-bouchard-warns-quebec-government-against-perils-of-religious-symbols-ban\/","title":{"rendered":"Gerard Bouchard warns Quebec government against perils of religious symbols ban"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Gerard Bouchard, co-author of a 2008 report cited as inspiration for the government’s Bill 21, wrote in Friday’s La Presse that it would be a serious mistake to prohibit teachers from wearing religious symbols. (File Photo By Service des communications de l’UQAC, CC BY-SA 3.0<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MONTREAL \u2013 Quebec’s proposed legislation banning religious symbols for some public servants drew more strong criticism Friday, with one of the province’s leading intellectuals rebuking the Coalition Avenir Quebec government’s approach.<\/p>\n

Gerard Bouchard, co-author of a 2008 report cited as inspiration for the government’s Bill 21, wrote in Friday’s La Presse that it would be a serious mistake to prohibit teachers from wearing religious symbols. He questioned whether Premier Francois Legault had \u201cyielded to demagogy\u201d in banning symbols for those in the education sector.<\/p>\n

Bouchard wrote that including teachers in that category, as Bill 21 does, is an unacceptable suppression of a fundamental right, and he called the government’s use of the notwithstanding clause to block court challenges \u201ca perilous path.\u201d<\/p>\n

The 2008 report written by Bouchard and philosopher Charles Taylor following provincewide public hearings proposed banning religious symbols for public servants who wield coercive authority, such as police officers, judges and prison guards.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is fundamentally a question of credibility,\u201d Bouchard wrote Friday. \u201cIt is important that these agents project an image of impartiality to those arrested or before the courts, to inspire maximum confidence.\u201d The goal, he said is to reduce \u201cthe possibility of a suspicion of bias or any ‘reasonable’ doubt.\u201d’<\/p>\n

Bouchard said Legault \u201cseriously erred (or yielded to demagogy?)\u201d by extending the ban to teachers on the vague grounds that they are \u201cin a position of authority.\u201d His statement comes the same week Taylor denounced Bill 21 as clearly discriminatory and told The Canadian Press he will be fighting the legislation any way he can.<\/p>\n

Also Friday, a group of west-end Montreal municipal, provincial and federal politicians called for Quebecers opposed to Bill 21 to join them in an April 14 protest, with one suburban mayor describing Bill 21 as \u201cethnic cleansing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hampstead Mayor William Steinberg said that a secular society does not impose one religion over another, as he believes Bill 21 is attempting to do. The end result will be certain groups \u2013 Jews, Muslims and Sikhs among them \u2013 won’t come to Quebec or will leave the province to allow their children to have a full array of job prospects.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is an attempt to remove those who practice minority religions, leaving only non-believers and Christians in Quebec,\u201d Steinberg told a news conference. \u201cThis is ethnic cleansing \u2013 not with a gun, but with a law. It’s racist. It is despicable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other politicians present, including Liberal MP Anthony Housefather, distanced themselves from the comment. The goal of the group, Housefather said, is to see the proposed law, withdrawn, changed or defeated altogether.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo child should be denied the right to believe they can be anything, and this is a law that denies that,\u201d he said, adding that the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause was uncalled for.<\/p>\n

\u201cCitizens have a right to know if a law violates the Quebec and Canadian charters of rights,\u201d Housefather said. \u201cTo use the notwithstanding clause before the law is tested in the courts makes it even more unjust.\u201d<\/p>\n

Speaking in Repentigny, Que., Legault told reporters his government is open to some compromise without specifying what. He noted the government included a grandfather clause for those already working \u2013 as long as they don’t switch jobs. It also agreed to take down the crucifix from the legislature.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut when I hear people say that even policemen and policewomen should be allowed to wear religious symbols, I don’t think we’ll find a compromise with these people,\u201d Legault said.<\/p>\n

Legault also told reporters he is comfortable with Bill 21’s inclusion of teachers, arguing that allowing religious symbols in the classroom could send the wrong message. \u201cFor the best interest of kids here in Quebec, we don’t believe teachers should wear religious symbols,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The bill’s sponsor, Simon Jolin-Barrette, minister of immigration, diversity and inclusion, called Steinberg’s comments unacceptable.<\/p>\n

\u201cPeople can have a disagreement about Bill 21. They have a right to their point of view,\u201d he said. \u201cBut in public debate in our society, we have to be calm, we have to be able to discuss, and we don’t have to insult each other.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MONTREAL \u2013 Quebec’s proposed legislation banning religious symbols for some public servants drew more strong criticism Friday, with one of …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":208632,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news-ca","category-news","mauthors-sidhartha-banerjee","mauthors-the-canadian-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208630","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=208630"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208630\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":208633,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208630\/revisions\/208633"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/208632"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}