Article content continued

“If the leaders of Quebec society are seeking to exclude from the public and political arenas all historically deep references to religious identity, then it stands to reason that the crucifix would need to be removed, too, not to mention the cross on the top of Mt. Royal,” he said.

Mark Mercer, professor of philosophy at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, said he is “appalled” by the proposals, and objects to the idea of defining symbols merely by their origins, rather than their current significance to the people who use them.

“What I object to is just taking the origin of things as necessarily part of them to the people who use those things today. I think that’s just misguided,” he said. He cited a criminal cross-burning case in Nova Scotia, which recalled the explicitly racist symbolism of Ku Klux Klan, but raised the vexing question of whether burning a cross, by itself, expresses racial hatred, simply because of the symbol’s history.

“There’s the origin, and it’s always tainted by its origin,” he said, but it is wrong to think a symbol always “retains the aspect of their origin.”

Christmas trees and crucifixes raise similar problems. “The province itself, as a legitimate, authoritative political entity, can do things like declare that, for the province, [a symbol] does not have religious significance… We accept that sort of thing all over the place. Remember, [in hockey] a goal isn’t scored just when a puck crosses the line. The goal isn’t scored until the referee raises his arm. Is it a goal? Depends what the referee says. Same thing. Is the Christmas tree a religious symbol?” he said, and quoted a baseball umpire to the effect that, “It ain’t nothing until I call it.”