By Marc GoldChair, Advocacy Summit
Someone once quipped that all publicity is good publicity. However true that may be in certain contexts, the amount of publicity that the Jewish community has received in the Quebec media over the past number of years has been neither good nor, at the risk of appearing parochial, good for the Jews.
First, we had the firestorm over the government’s plan to extend full funding to Jewish day schools. This was followed by all the events giving rise to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, the ongoing controversy surrounding the government’s Ethics and Religious Culture program, the crisis provoked by the legalization of certain orthodox Jewish day schools, the questioning of financing for certain day care centres within the Jewish community, and most recently, the tabling of Bill 94 concerning access to, and the provision of, government funded services.
Given all this, it is clear that Quebec is engaged in an ongoing struggle with the place of religion in society. What is even more clear is that the time is ripe for a proper and open debate on this issue. Whether the political and cultural environment in Quebec is ready for such a serious débat de sociéte, however, remains to be seen.
Up until now, the debate has been framed in terms that have pitted the ostensibly homogenous majority culture against the demands of the religiously defined minorities that are to be accommodated. This has made it appear as if every request made by members of the Jewish community – and others – is a demand for some privilege to be granted or resisted, and this, in turn, has contributed to shaping the issues in “us” against “them” terms. This has informed the tactical calculations of the political parties in Quebec and also reflects the way in which the debate is largely being framed in the popular media and blogosphere, with inordinate attention being paid to the impact on Quebec society of Hassidic Jews and veiled Muslim women.
More recently, we have seen an attempt to stimulate a broader debate about the nature of la laicité, with the publication of Pour un Québec pluraliste and Pour un Québec laique et pluraliste by members of the academic community. A welcome contribution though this is, we need, and deserve, a broader debate within Quebec that engages all segments of the population.
A broad and open debate will serve to highlight some of the confusion, if not the contradictions, that currently plague the discussion of the issues. For example, the decision of the government to allow schools to open on weekends was denounced by some as re-introducing religion into the public schools and by others as a lack of respect for the sacred nature of Sunday. Others call for a conception of la laicité that is “pure et dure” so long that it does not threaten the patrimonial (read Catholic) heritage of Quebec, whether that be on the matter of holidays like Christmas or Easter or on the Catholic symbols that dot our public landscape.
A broad débat de société would also shed some light on what is happening elsewhere in the world. For example, one often hears the French approach to la laicité cited as an example of a model to be adopted in Quebec, with little attention paid to the fact that the French model is under increasing criticism within France itself. More to the point, one rarely hears any mention of the fact that the French model also encompasses the public funding of private, religious-based schools.
A more open debate may also expose the absurd nature of some of the positions being staked out in Quebec today. In the name of freedom of expression one can trade openly in Nazi artifacts, but in the name of la laicité, some object to three year olds being taught that it is wrong to kill because that is perceived to be bundled up with religious instruction in a day care centre. More importantly, such a debate will provide a voice for the broad diversity of opinion within Quebec society on the subject.
Quebecers are not of one mind on the question of the place of religion in society. Far from it. There are many Quebecers who remain committed and attached to their Catholic heritage. Even those who may have rejected the dominant role that the Church played in our past have not necessarily rejected the underlying religious and spiritual values of their religion. Others have turned their back on organized religion in their own lives, but understand and respect the fact that others have chosen a different path for themselves and that this should be respected in a democratic society. These points of view may be found in all segments of Quebec society, in all the political parties, and across all regions of the province. Their voices, too, need to be heard on the issues of the day.
So must our voices. The Jewish community is a diverse and pluralistic one with a variety of viewpoints. What I believe unites most of us, notwithstanding our differences, is a commitment to a vision of Quebec that respects the common values that define us as a free and democratic society as well as the diversity that increasingly characterizes our rapidly changing world.
In terms of the current debate, this has led us to offer a conception of la laicité that reflects the history and character of Quebec society as it has evolved over the years. It is based upon the core Jewish principle that the law of the land is to be respected, affirms our commitment to the values embodied in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and includes our place in our province’s patrimonial history. In our brief to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, the issue was put as follows:
We recognize the religious and cultural heritage of Quebec as the principal factor that has shaped our society. This heritage has not only influenced and built the collective majority identity, it has also molded the environment in which the Jewish community and its institutions developed and evolved. We firmly believe that we are an integral part of this Quebec heritage.
We are in favor of a pluralistic Quebec, respectful of the diversity of its population; of a Quebec that grants groups and individuals the space to express their identity; of a Quebec that recognizes the contribution, both past and future, of all its citizens and the legitimacy of their specific and particular nature in our society.
We support a secular model “made in Quebec”; consequently, one that is less rigid than those adopted in France and in the United States. Quebec must, at the same time, take into account its history, the fact that it is a society that has been shaped by the majority community, and of the legitimate needs inherent to its new diversity. The state must not promote any religion, and public spaces must, in principle, be neutral unless a particular symbol has an exceptional patrimonial significance or be the object of a well established consensus, as for example the Christmas tree.
Nonetheless, the action lies in the details. In this respect, we cannot overestimate the challenges we face in protecting our rights and interests in the current environment. Our place in Quebec society was shaped during a time when much was defined in religious terms, whether in the fields of health, education or social policy, and when we were the only major non-Christian minority in the province. Those days are long gone. With whom do we make common cause in today’s more complicated world? Where do our interests truly lie? The answers are no longer self-evident, if indeed they ever were. That said, our priority is, and remains, to protect our vital interests as a community, which include maintaining the appropriate financing of our educational, health and social service institutions.
Nor can we ignore the risks associated with a full débat de société on the issue of religion and the state. The debate will likely give rise to certain xenophobic and intolerant voices. No doubt, hurtful things will be expressed. But sometimes the choice is between the lesser of two evils. The ways in which the issues have been discussed up until now have been hurtful and harmful to our community and to others. For so long as the debate continues to be framed in the narrow terms that it has, it will continue to take place on the backs of religious and cultural minorities. This is not in our interest as Quebecers, as Canadians, and as members of the Jewish community.
