Behind
the Quebec Hijab Debate
Note:
I published this blog as an op-ed piece in The Hamilton Spectator, May
22, 2019, p. A10. https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/9363341-behind-quebec-s-hijab-debate-three-types-of-rights-clashes-are-involved/
For my earlier blogs on Quebec, providing some
historical background, see https://rhodahassmann.blogspot.com/2013/09/
(A New Quebec Value: Discrimination
against Religious Minorities) and https://rhodahassmann.blogspot.com/2014/04/
(Back to Normal in Quebec?)
The Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) government
has introduced Bill 21, a law that would supposedly entrench religious
neutrality in Quebec. It would do so by prohibiting providers of government services
such as judges, police and teachers from wearing religious symbols, such as hijabs (headscarves for female Muslims),
turbans (for male Sikhs), and kippas (skullcaps
for male Jews).
 |
| Quebec Muslim women demonstrating against Bill 21 |
Bill 21 also
prohibits providing or seeking a government service with one’s face covered. This
principle is relatively uncontroversial in Quebec, though some worry that it
might discriminate against the very few Muslim women who cover their faces.
The principle
behind Bill 21 is laicity, or secularism. Quebeckers are currently debating the
human rights implications of Bill 21, just as they debated earlier versions proposed
by the Parti Quebecois government in 2013 and the Liberal government in 2015.
Three types of
rights clashes are involved.
The first debate
is about whether public servants, while at work, should be permitted to exhibit
their religious beliefs through their dress.
The CAQ considered
wearing religious dress to be a violation of state religious neutrality. It is a
form of passive or silent proselytism, trying to convert others to your own
religion. Prohibition of government servants’ wearing of religious symbols is
necessary to preserve the secular character of Quebec society. The prohibition is
a relatively minor violation of freedom of religion, if indeed it is a
violation at all.
Yet the 1975
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms includes the right to openly
profess religious beliefs without fear of reprisal. International law protects
this right too, as does a 1985 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. From
this point of view, while the state has to demonstrate its religious
neutrality, its individual employees do not have the same obligation.
The second
debate is about women’s rights. Bill 21 states that the Québec nation,
“attaches importance to the equality of women and men.” This equality takes
precedence over religious customs that imply discrimination against women.
Some Quebec
feminists, including some of Muslim background, maintain that men have always
used religion to oppress women. Even if Muslim women wear the hijab voluntarily, they have been taught
since birth to believe that the genders are unequal.
Some of the older
women who support Bill 21 remember when the Catholic Church dominated Quebec.
During the 1960s Quiet Revolution, Quebeckers freed themselves from the Church’s
control over marriage, divorce, contraception and abortion. For these older
women, Bill 21 will similarly help Muslim women free themselves from religious
control.
Those who oppose
Bill 21 argue that it is discriminatory to refuse the opportunity of state
employment to women who chose to wear religious symbols. The ban on religious
garb will undermine some minority women’s right to employment, as in the case
of Muslim women teachers.
Opponents also maintain
that women who enjoy equality should be permitted to make independent
individual decisions about whether to wear the hijab. If women are being forced into wearing religious garb, then
the people forcing them should be punished, not the women themselves.
The third debate
is about collective versus individual rights. Bill 21 states that “laicity
should balance between the collective rights of the Québec nation and human
rights and freedoms.” According to Bill 21, these include the collective right
to maintain Québec’s religious cultural heritage, even if the state is formally
secular. Thus for example, religious place names can still exist.
People favouring the new law believe in the
right of the community to a certain level of social integration or cohesion. It
is important for all to live together in harmony, emphasizing sameness rather
than difference. People who speak French at home are more likely to believe
this than people who speak other languages.
Many critics of
this view assume that anyone who defends it is afraid of residents of Quebec
not descended from the original French Catholic settlers. The law appears to be
directed primarily against Montreal and Quebec City and to reflect a fear of
strangers in Quebec’s more homogeneous regions. Critics argue that it is not
necessary for recent immigrant groups—or for long-standing Quebeckers like
Jews—to remove their religious symbols in order to be part of Quebec society.
If Bill 21 is
passed, it’s likely that many Quebec Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs will migrate to
other parts of Canada so that they can freely manifest their religions at work.
The rest of Canada will gain from this migration, and Quebec will lose.
