The Charter of Values has three crucial defects: It discriminates against citizens from a non-Christian background, it deepens divisions between Quebecers and sets them against each other, and it undermines democracy by using the power of the state to benefit the majority at the expense of the minority.

If adopted, the charter would prohibit individuals working for any organization subsidized by the government (day care, school, university, clinic or hospital) from wearing “ostentatious” religious symbols like a turban, hijab, kippa or oversized cross. At the same time, it would entitle the National Assembly to decide whether to maintain the presence of Catholic religious artifacts — the crucifix that hangs above the speaker’s chair in the National Assembly in Quebec, the cross that stands on top of Mount Royal in Montreal — on the grounds that the crucifix and cross belong to the cultural heritage of Quebec.

In other words, it forces minority groups to remove the symbols that their religions command them to wear and allows the majority to keep their own symbols in place when they are part of public buildings or parks. Aside from infringing on a basic human right, the freedom to worship freely, the prohibition against religious symbols and dress clearly aims to limit the visual presence of non-Christian minorities. The government wants to maintain a landscape of crosses as a common cultural heritage but to erase the visibility of non-Christian faiths in the public sphere.

By seeking to regulate religious practice in a discriminatory way, the government has pitted Quebecers against one another; it has created strong tensions where generally there was peace. The incidence of attacks (mostly verbal) against Muslim women wearing head scarves has increased sharply. Members of minority cultures feel less at home. Will the charter, if passed, further exclude already marginalized people, in particular Muslim women, from the public sphere? Already some secular Montrealers have begun wearing hijabs or kippas to express opposition to the charter. Will the law increase adoption of religious types of dress by turning them into emblems of political dissent?

The charter undermines Quebec’s values and its reputation for progressivism. In sponsoring the charter, the government is shifting attention and resources away from some very serious problems facing Quebec today, including a lagging economy and long waiting lists for hospital services. For the many residents of Quebec who lack a family doctor, being the patient of a qualified physician in a turban, hijab or kippa would be a cause for celebration, not complaint.

For Mr. Lisée, Montreal and its multiculturalism are a problem and the Charter of Values a solution. The opposite is true. The multicultural reality of Montreal shows the power that resides in the creative interaction of diverse people in a public sphere open to all.

Eve Sanders, Montreal

Mr. Lisée is being economical with the truth when he asserts that his party has reached a decision to remove the large crucifix currently hanging in the Quebec National Assembly. His Parti Québécois first announced that the crucifix would remain because it was not a religious symbol but part of Quebec’s cultural heritage. The current proposal in the bill before the National Assembly would leave it up to the legislature to decide. As this body will undoubtedly vote to keep the crucifix where it is, the specious claim that the Charter of Values will defend the religious neutrality of the state is revealed. Some religious symbols, it seems, are more neutral than others.