Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

Quebec’s War on Religion -- Is it constitutional to ban public employees from wearing kippahs, hijabs, crosses and turbans? The Supreme Court will soon decide.


It was 2019, and Bouchera Chelbi was afraid of being fired. Rumours were rippling through the Montreal public elementary school where she taught English as a second language. Quebec’s new right-of-centre ruling party, the Coalition Avenir Québec, or CAQ, had recently won its first term in office, and one of Premier François Legault’s key election promises was to pass legislation banning certain public employees from wearing religious symbols, like the Jewish kippah, Sikh turban, Christian cross or Muslim hijab. 

In the 11 years she’d been teaching in Quebec, she’d never heard a comment in school about her hijab. But suddenly, as the CAQ readied a bill banning her from wearing it at work, her colleagues were both angry on her behalf and a little bemused. “I don’t get it,” one told her. “What’s the point of this law?”

There were two, from the government’s perspective: first, it allowed the CAQ to position itself as a defender of Québécois identity without leaning into separatism, which was increasingly unpopular in Quebec. Secondly, it let the party take decisive action on a long-simmering public debate. On the surface, the bill was a reincarnation of a 2013 effort by the Parti Québécois, known informally, and infamously, as the Charte des valeurs—the Quebec Charter of Values ...

CLICK HERE for the full story

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

'Very good news' that Supreme Court will hear B.C. mineral claims case, Eby says

The BC government needs clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada on a landmark mineral rights claim, Premier David Eby says. But the lawyer representing the challenger says that they would have preferred the province respect the lower court's decision. Eby said Thursday it is very good news that the court will hear its appeal of a ruling that found the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the provincial mineral claims regime are "inconsistent." The BC Court of Appeal ruled in December that the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA, should be "properly interpreted" to incorporate the UN declaration into the laws of B.C. with immediate legal effect. That ruling set off the appeal from the province amid concerns that it could cause economic uncertainty ... CLICK HERE for the full story 

EBY OFFSIDE WITH NATIONAL INTEREST AS CARNEY AND SMITH BUILD BC'S ECONOMIC FUTURE WITHOUT HIM ~~ BC Conservatives

IMAGE CREDIT :  CBC News   Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced a landmark agreement today committing Ottawa to designate a new pipeline to BC's west coast as a project of national interest by October 1, 2026, with construction approval targeted for September 1, 2027. The deal pairs the pipeline with a new industrial carbon pricing framework and a fall 2027 construction start. British Columbia, the province where the pipeline ends, where the jobs would land, and where the export terminal would be built, was nowhere at the table. "This is a nation-building deal, and the BC NDP have been locked out of the room," said Trevor Halford, Interim Leader of the Official Opposition.  "While the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta were doing the hard work of growing the Canadian economy, the NDP is on the sidelines calling this pipeline a 'fiction' and an 'energy vampire.'  He chose petulance over partnership, and now BC ...

Kamloops - North Thompson BC Conservative MLA Ward Stamer speaks to Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

The following is a condensed version of Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s remarks, to the BC Legislature, on the afternoon of Tuesday May 19th : I rise today to continue remarks on Bill 20, the K’ómoks treaty, and to address what I believe are some of the most important constitutional, democratic and governance concerns facing this Legislature today. At the centre of this debate are two major issues. First, unresolved overlapping territorial boundaries tied to this treaty process. And second, the growing legal and political consequences arising from the provincial government’s implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, more commonly known as DRIPA. Much of the government’s defence on DRIPA rests upon references to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. And this is where we must begin having a more honest and mature conversation in this province. UNDRIP was never originally designed to function ...

Labels

Show more