There is a debate in Quebec right now that is anything but simple: How can a free and democratic society grant religious freedom to its citizens while keeping this right in balabce with other rights recognized by our charters and by plain common sense, such as the equality between women and men?
There's another question, just as complex: How can we reconcile this necessity with the role of the state as a neutral agent in its relations with its citizens, especially in an increasingly pluralistic society such as ours? From a rational point of view, this is how one should approach this complex debate - but, alas, The Gazette does not.
In Paul Waters's article, ("[Niqab harkens back to the dark days of Duplessis->26728], April 1), he establishes his position: Religious freedom must be absolute and above all other considerations. Fair enough. Many have expressed this opinion. Waters, however, does not defend this position with philosophical or political arguments. He simply implies that freedom, not just religious freedom but freedom in general, is a concept with which "Quebecers" (we understand between the lines that he means the "Québécois de souche"), have difficulties.
According to Waters, we should thank women wearing niqabs because the debate around them has revealed "just how weak-kneed and fragile is our commitment to personal liberty and religious freedom."
Waters's article is a wonderful synthesis of anti-francophone ideology. Everything that francophones do is suspicious, even if it comes from the Liberal Party. He writes: "Bullying outsiders to protect 'Quebec values' turns out to be one of the few traditional values to have survived the Quiet Revolution intact." Waters knows us well: He understands, and is declaring that, after hockey, bullying-the-other is a national sport.
He doesn't, however, point out that Louis-Joseph Papineau in 1832, long, long before the Quiet Revolution, proposed that we in Quebec give civic rights to Jewish citizens. The proposition was accepted by the Chambre d'Assemblée - a first in the British Empire.
My party, the Parti Québécois, was one of the first in the Western world to forbid discrimination against homosexuals in its Charter of Rights. Yet, the subtext of Waters's article suggests that we lag far behind when it comes to the civilizing values of British and anglo-saxon culture.
To prove his point, Waters proposes that we draw parallels between Quebec's past and present. He writes, for instance, that in the 1930s and 1940s, Quebec "was even less an immigrant's first choice than it is now," so "values-defenders" had to content themselves with venting their spleen on internal enemies. Jews, for example, and Communists." I cannot deny, sadly, the existence of anti-Semitism, here as elsewhere, in the '30s and '40s. As for communism, it was feared, here as elsewhere, during the same period (McCarthy, anyone?).
But these were phenomena that existed elsewhere, as well. Can we really draw such parallels between past and present? Hmmm. I am tempted to try:
Two hundred years ago, in 1810, during an election campaign, British governor James Craig forbade the publication of the newspaper Le Canadien. A few days later, he arrested about 20 of the newspaper's writers, including three members of the Chambre d'Assemblée. Pierre Bédard, an ardent defender of freedom of the press, was one of them. Bédard remained in jail for a whole year without trial. Despite his imprisonment, he was nonetheless re-elected by French Canadian voters. Yes, a British governor who banned the publication of a French-Canadian newspaper and jailed all those who peacefully opposed his policies.
Then there was 1849, when rioters set fire to the Parliament of the United Province of Canada (then located in Montreal). They had been encouraged to do so by The Gazette. The Parliament was completely destroyed.
Let us continue our trip down memory lane: Remember that Catholic schools (French-language schools) were forbidden in New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Ontario in the late 19th and early 20th century? I could add the War Measures Act of 1970 or the stabbing in the back of Quebec during the 1982 constitutional negotiations.
You see my point? I could never ever make the sweeping statement that English-speaking citizens of Quebec and Canada are anti-democratic, racist, and violent people just because some of their ancestors were responsible for anti-democratic, racist, and violent deeds.
Let us return to the niqab debate. Most countries of the Western world are now reflecting about the best means to welcome and integrate newcomers. But not Canada, enmeshed as it is in an official policy of multiculturalism that political correctness forbids us from ever questioning or reviewing.
There is hope, however: Most Canadian citizens agree with Quebec on the niqab issue, as Waters notes, thus undermining his whole argument. Canadians and Quebecers want a public debate about these questions.
My party feels that the Liberals' bill does not go far enough. Waters is right in a way: This bill is unfair because, by legislating that Quebec government services be provided only if people are "à visage découvert," it targets only women who wear niqabs and burkas. It does not guarantee equality between women and men, nor the neutrality of the state, as it leaves untouched the question of the presence of other religious signs in public institutions.
Martin Lemay is PQ MNA for Sainte-Marie-Saint- Jacques.