MONTREAL—The Quebec government’s plan to ban public servants from wearing symbols of their faith at work violates Quebec’s Charter of Rights and will fail if it is subjected to a legal challenge, the province’s human rights commission says.

In a pre-emptive strike before Quebec’s so-called values charter legislation has even been tabled in the legislature, the commission has dealt the ruling Parti Québécois one of the more stinging blows since the debate around the religious neutrality of the state was launched in late August.

“The proposition to ban religious signs shows a poor understanding of freedom of religion such as is protected in the Charter (of rights) as well as in international law,” says Jacques Frémont, president of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse. “This obligation applies to institutions of the state, but not its agents.”

The PQ proposal to ban teachers, bureaucrats, police officers, nurses, doctors and others whose salary is paid by tax dollars from wearing turbans, kippas, hijabs, crucifixes and other religious symbols has resulted in sharp divisions in Quebec. Sovereigntists have splintered in protest, feminists are pitted against one another, and more homogeneous rural areas of Quebec are clashing with multicultural Montreal.

But Premier Pauline Marois’ government has vowed to forge ahead with the proposal in order to ensure the religious neutrality of the state and to bolster the principle of gender equality.

Quebec’s Democratic Institutions Minister Bernard Drainville told La Presse Thursday that while the government respects the role of the province’s human rights body, it doesn’t share the same views.

“We are proposing to change the Charter (of rights) to enshrine the principle of religious neutrality. The commission has based its judgment based on the current Charter without considering the changes we are going to make,” he said.

But Frémont says any changes proposed by the PQ government are unnecessary. Equality of the sexes is already protected in Quebec’s human rights legislation, which was a 1975 precursor to the federal charter, and the new law would only result in people being denied work based on their religious beliefs. That would be both an attack on freedom of expression and the right to work, Frémont says.

“The measures are a complete break with the (Quebec charter) . . . . The proposed modifications would be the most radical since it became law.”

Drainville also said it was odd that the commission did not wait until the legislation had been tabled before making its opinion public.

The government is reportedly fine-tuning its proposition based on the backlash and feedback it has received over the last month, including a vow by hospitals, municipalities and universities in the Montreal area to opt-out of the charter en masse. The government hasn’t confirmed any details, but reports in the last week have suggested it is considering exempting the hospitals from the charter restrictions, scrapping a five-year opt-out clause, applying the measures to elected officials and removing the crucifix from the province’s legislature.

The third party in the provincial legislature, the Coalition Avenir Québec are the closest in position to the PQ, but feel the ban on religious symbols should apply only to those in positions of authority, including teachers, police officers, judges and prison guards.

The party’s culture critic, Nathalie Roy, urged the government to tone down its “radical” legislation and seek common ground with other parties, arguing that the values charter will have “no legitimacy” without significant support in the legislature. The minority PQ government needs the support of other parties to pass any legislation.

Debate around the proposed charter peaked again this week after a group of prominent female personalities, artists and commentators said the charter was vital to protect the equality of the sexes in Quebec.

Yet one of them, director Denise Filiatrault, caused a stir when she wrote off as “crazy” those Muslim women who say they choose to wear a hijab or head covering by choice. The question came in a radio interview.

“These are stories that men tell. When women don’t wear it, they get in trouble . . . and when that doesn’t work they are drowned in a lake,” she said in an apparent reference to the headline-grabbing Shafia murder trial. The case involved an Afghan businessman in Montreal, Mohammad Shafia, who was sentenced to life in prison along with his wife and son for drowning first wife (from a polygamous marriage) and his three daughters because they were dating against his will, refusing to wear a headscarf and skipping school.

Janette Bertrand, a Quebec author, said women who wear the Muslim veil have been “manipulated to become religious objects” and are being “exploited.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Though the debate has been difficult and emotional, the human rights commission said things will only get tougher if the proposed legislation ever becomes Quebec law.

“If it is adopted (the ban on wearing religious symbols) will be be a clear violation of the charter and will not stand up to a legal test with the current state of jurisprudence. It would not be valid without the use of the (Canadian Constitution’s) notwithstanding clause.”

Read more about: