Can we please stop pretending this has anything to do about church and state, and everything to do with xenophobia? Parizeau made it clear enough.
When someone tells you who they are - listen to them.
They want to keep the pur laine vote animated, and tied up. Muslim women are the expendable target du jour.
I hope the ROC is able to hire these qualified french speaking/bilingual women into the jobs that will benefit our educational systems - they are under strain everywhere.
Sometimes it is worth considering - the hay the media and federal government would make if this was an Alberta, Saskatchewan policy (or any other, really), and not a Quebec one
A terrific article and glad you have shared it Paul. More people have to read this. This law in Quebec has crossed a line under the guise of 'separation of church and state' to targeting minorities - in this case Muslim women. Of course it could be aimed at anyone of faith.
It is aimed at anyone of faith. Teachers you say, Not just teachers. Any of the Governments offices this law applies in full. Anything that falls within the government of Quebec's jurisdiction.
Outside of that it holds no sway, has no legality in any other domaine.
Thank you! Quebeckers have been too silent on Bill 9 as our children and our society suffer for the sake of this racial and religious persecution disguised as “secularism “. Bill 9 and its malicious parent, Bill 21, must be defeated!
So disheartening that the proponents of these measures choose to punish women who follow their faith.
In many ways these proponents are as guilty as the Catholic Church of yore.
Suggesting that a headscarf reduces their humanity and acceptability and thus demonizing them is not what I think LeSage et al had in mind 60 years ago. The hijab does not proselytize nor threaten secular society although the fear of a bogeyman is apparent in the actions of foolish and feckless politicians.
Define Punishment: Tell that to all the Iranian Girls and Woman hung by the neck. Tell that to the girls and women beaten and raped in Qarchak or Evin prison not for not wearing a hijab but wearing it incorrectly. The women hung in Pakistani and Bangladesh, The Yazzidi women burnt alive, the sex slaves. But you say that's not Canada that's not Canada, right?
Good you want closer to home. Good i will give you, Closer to my home, actually a five minutes from my home, a muslim father strangled his daughter to death because she didnt want to wear the hijab. Last week a muslim father took a hammer to his twenty seven year old daughter's head almost killed her. Why, because of a Hijab again? Nope, she wanted to marry outside her faith.
All of what I wrote is from memory.
So go on, tell me how Quebec is punishing muslim women. I will finish with this. Does Bedford mean anything to you.....
The rush to support "laicité" in Quebec was a bit surprising, given that, since at least the 1960s, the state has, in fact been secular – no one renewing their driver's licence is harangued for not showing up at mass last week. These laws (21 and 9) have their roots in a little town called Héroxuville, QC, which in 2007 passed a code of conduct banning practises like stoning, which did not exist but which were attributed to potential Muslim immigrants. This idea of "secularism" gave cover to xenophobes, allowing them to denounce the open display of religion without appearing openly racist. It was so convenient. And a government that counted on places like Hérouxville to deliver reliable majorities in the National Assembly tipped its hat to those voters, many of whom had likely never seen a Muslim in their lives, but who had heard of the Islamificacation of the great multicultural Satan, Montreal. It is long past time that this was called out, and I thank both Jean-François Nadeau and Paul Wells for doing so.
"It’s as though we decided symbols matter more than children. Is Quebec mad about its children, or just mad?"
I'm French-Canadian (albeit hors du Québec), but if this is the length that Québec society chooses to treat its citizens, perhaps we need to admit that this "distinct society" is not worth preserving.
Well done Monsieur Nadeau. Where is the Québecois compassion? Treating these women this way is so senseless. It will do nothing significant to safeguard secularism. The legislators are overcome with theory and legalisms. Have a heart please.
As I understand it, any government can start to undo this damage by refusing to renew the notwithstanding clause when it expires after five years, allowing court challenges to go ahead. Perhaps if Quebec courts were to defeat Bill 21 it would go over better and not be seen as the ROC imposing its values on Quebec.
It was mentioned in another comment, but it bears repeating. If Alberta were to try this, it would make national headlines, be the subject of political panels on every medium & the provincial government would be vilified by our PM
Our oldest grandson is a first year ‘social studies’ and ’French’ teacher in a Highschool in an Alberta city.
75% of his students are of the Muslim religion. When he incorporated music as part of the curriculum, the Muslim students loudly objected on religious grounds. He had to turn off the music to get the class back under control.
Being new to teaching, he reported the issue to his department head, who simply shrugged it off.
I'm conflicted. On one hand, I belive in the right of people to express themselves fully, including in their dress. In the other, a country <or province, in this case) has a right to expect immigrants to acculturate. We want Algerians to become Quebeckers, not Quebeckers to become Algerian.
Quebec routinely violates fundamental rights and freedoms. So does almost every other jurisdiction in the world (yes, including in Canada). Fundamental rights and freedoms are inherently individualist in nature, whereas the privileges Quebec is trying to protect are collective. You either accept this choice, or adopt the US bill of rights.
Personally I find it more than a little odd that so many people are failing to see the obvious, given what's currently happening in Alberta, the U.S. and elsewhere when laws like these are promoted. I believe it has little to do with secularism and everything to do with distracting citizens from the predatory neglect and privatization of their public institutions, courtesy of the politically well-connected. Why? Because apparently it's not a difficult sell these days.
I am very conflicted. I do appreciate all the many arguments against this law.
On the other hand, wearing the veil does (wordlessly) convey the message that females should be subservient to men. Women have spent years fighting for the same rights as males in society, and I also think that an argument can be made here that allowing the veil is turning the clock back on equality of the sexes.
I have many Muslim women friends, some wear a headscarf, others don't, some used to but took it off. Women's motivations for wearing it vary widely and are complex.
And for those Muslim women who do wear it because they were pressured by the men in their life -- the state oppressing them in return is not helpful.
It's more than that -- it's legally-accepted that persons in some positions have influence over others. (In my youngest of school years, I remember many kids saying their career choice was teacher, when asked.) I agree that Quebec should prevent ideologies from being presented by people in position of influence.
It's a sad story that people lose jobs, but give us more context. How long were employees given to react to the new policy? How many found jobs elsewhere?
I'm not sure that it always -- at least -- suggests that women should be subservient to men. From what I've read, it's often a woman who decides of her own free will to wear a hijab, for religious reasons. (Although I believe that the hijab isn't required by the Koran...)
I have spent the last 10 to 15 years researching Islam after I noticed increasing numbers of women in my community dressed in niqabs (with faces covered). It is a mistake to think that Islam is just another monotheistic religion. It is a political system wrapped up in a religion.
Proper covering for women is commanded in two verses in the Quran, with further explanation and support in the Hadiths (stories of Mohammed's doings and sayings, which are essential to know how to practice Islam).
Take note that only Muslin women could wear these garments, so they could be easily recognised and "not molested'. Other women were considered to be available for molestation and rape. (There is an obscure Hadith about a slave girl who was punished for dressing like the believing women.) In Muslim majority countries and amongst very devout Muslims everywhere, uncovered women are generally considered to be "filthy whores". Honour killings of muslim girls and women are often at least partly connected to removal of the hijab, which is seen as bringing shame to the family.
Here is Google's AI overview:
The Quran instructs believing women to pull their garments (veils or cloaks) over their bodies for modesty and protection. This command is primarily mentioned in two verses:
Surah An-Nur (24:31): "...let them draw their veils (khumur) over their chests (juyub), and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments...". The khimar is a head-covering, and women in the Prophet's time were told to drape it down to cover their necks and bosoms, which were sometimes exposed in traditional attire.
Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59): "O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments (jalabib) over their persons (when abroad)...". This verse instructs the use of a jilbab—a loose outer garment—to cover themselves completely, which is described as a way to be recognized and not molested
Thanks for sharing. Great column pointing out the practical injustices.
“L'argent, puis des votes ethniques”
Can we please stop pretending this has anything to do about church and state, and everything to do with xenophobia? Parizeau made it clear enough.
When someone tells you who they are - listen to them.
They want to keep the pur laine vote animated, and tied up. Muslim women are the expendable target du jour.
I hope the ROC is able to hire these qualified french speaking/bilingual women into the jobs that will benefit our educational systems - they are under strain everywhere.
Sometimes it is worth considering - the hay the media and federal government would make if this was an Alberta, Saskatchewan policy (or any other, really), and not a Quebec one
A terrific article and glad you have shared it Paul. More people have to read this. This law in Quebec has crossed a line under the guise of 'separation of church and state' to targeting minorities - in this case Muslim women. Of course it could be aimed at anyone of faith.
It is aimed at anyone of faith. Teachers you say, Not just teachers. Any of the Governments offices this law applies in full. Anything that falls within the government of Quebec's jurisdiction.
Outside of that it holds no sway, has no legality in any other domaine.
Yes that’s true. To give government that much authoritarian power makes it even more draconian.
Thank you! Quebeckers have been too silent on Bill 9 as our children and our society suffer for the sake of this racial and religious persecution disguised as “secularism “. Bill 9 and its malicious parent, Bill 21, must be defeated!
One Word: Bedford
? What are you referring to?
Bedford School in Côté des Neiges
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bedford-elementary-school-secularism-teachers-suspended-1.7359316
So disheartening that the proponents of these measures choose to punish women who follow their faith.
In many ways these proponents are as guilty as the Catholic Church of yore.
Suggesting that a headscarf reduces their humanity and acceptability and thus demonizing them is not what I think LeSage et al had in mind 60 years ago. The hijab does not proselytize nor threaten secular society although the fear of a bogeyman is apparent in the actions of foolish and feckless politicians.
Define Punishment: Tell that to all the Iranian Girls and Woman hung by the neck. Tell that to the girls and women beaten and raped in Qarchak or Evin prison not for not wearing a hijab but wearing it incorrectly. The women hung in Pakistani and Bangladesh, The Yazzidi women burnt alive, the sex slaves. But you say that's not Canada that's not Canada, right?
Good you want closer to home. Good i will give you, Closer to my home, actually a five minutes from my home, a muslim father strangled his daughter to death because she didnt want to wear the hijab. Last week a muslim father took a hammer to his twenty seven year old daughter's head almost killed her. Why, because of a Hijab again? Nope, she wanted to marry outside her faith.
All of what I wrote is from memory.
So go on, tell me how Quebec is punishing muslim women. I will finish with this. Does Bedford mean anything to you.....
Ps: I have more.
The rush to support "laicité" in Quebec was a bit surprising, given that, since at least the 1960s, the state has, in fact been secular – no one renewing their driver's licence is harangued for not showing up at mass last week. These laws (21 and 9) have their roots in a little town called Héroxuville, QC, which in 2007 passed a code of conduct banning practises like stoning, which did not exist but which were attributed to potential Muslim immigrants. This idea of "secularism" gave cover to xenophobes, allowing them to denounce the open display of religion without appearing openly racist. It was so convenient. And a government that counted on places like Hérouxville to deliver reliable majorities in the National Assembly tipped its hat to those voters, many of whom had likely never seen a Muslim in their lives, but who had heard of the Islamificacation of the great multicultural Satan, Montreal. It is long past time that this was called out, and I thank both Jean-François Nadeau and Paul Wells for doing so.
"It’s as though we decided symbols matter more than children. Is Quebec mad about its children, or just mad?"
I'm French-Canadian (albeit hors du Québec), but if this is the length that Québec society chooses to treat its citizens, perhaps we need to admit that this "distinct society" is not worth preserving.
Well done Monsieur Nadeau. Where is the Québecois compassion? Treating these women this way is so senseless. It will do nothing significant to safeguard secularism. The legislators are overcome with theory and legalisms. Have a heart please.
Very well said!
As I understand it, any government can start to undo this damage by refusing to renew the notwithstanding clause when it expires after five years, allowing court challenges to go ahead. Perhaps if Quebec courts were to defeat Bill 21 it would go over better and not be seen as the ROC imposing its values on Quebec.
Thanks Paul for sharing this article.
It was mentioned in another comment, but it bears repeating. If Alberta were to try this, it would make national headlines, be the subject of political panels on every medium & the provincial government would be vilified by our PM
Our oldest grandson is a first year ‘social studies’ and ’French’ teacher in a Highschool in an Alberta city.
75% of his students are of the Muslim religion. When he incorporated music as part of the curriculum, the Muslim students loudly objected on religious grounds. He had to turn off the music to get the class back under control.
Being new to teaching, he reported the issue to his department head, who simply shrugged it off.
I'm conflicted. On one hand, I belive in the right of people to express themselves fully, including in their dress. In the other, a country <or province, in this case) has a right to expect immigrants to acculturate. We want Algerians to become Quebeckers, not Quebeckers to become Algerian.
That isn't what is happening here. Quebec is violating fundamental rights and freedoms.
"Acculturation" is a word that implies benign integration, not compulsion, surely?
Quebec routinely violates fundamental rights and freedoms. So does almost every other jurisdiction in the world (yes, including in Canada). Fundamental rights and freedoms are inherently individualist in nature, whereas the privileges Quebec is trying to protect are collective. You either accept this choice, or adopt the US bill of rights.
Bravo. I wish more Quebecers agreed.
Personally I find it more than a little odd that so many people are failing to see the obvious, given what's currently happening in Alberta, the U.S. and elsewhere when laws like these are promoted. I believe it has little to do with secularism and everything to do with distracting citizens from the predatory neglect and privatization of their public institutions, courtesy of the politically well-connected. Why? Because apparently it's not a difficult sell these days.
I am very conflicted. I do appreciate all the many arguments against this law.
On the other hand, wearing the veil does (wordlessly) convey the message that females should be subservient to men. Women have spent years fighting for the same rights as males in society, and I also think that an argument can be made here that allowing the veil is turning the clock back on equality of the sexes.
I have many Muslim women friends, some wear a headscarf, others don't, some used to but took it off. Women's motivations for wearing it vary widely and are complex.
And for those Muslim women who do wear it because they were pressured by the men in their life -- the state oppressing them in return is not helpful.
It's more than that -- it's legally-accepted that persons in some positions have influence over others. (In my youngest of school years, I remember many kids saying their career choice was teacher, when asked.) I agree that Quebec should prevent ideologies from being presented by people in position of influence.
It's a sad story that people lose jobs, but give us more context. How long were employees given to react to the new policy? How many found jobs elsewhere?
I'm not sure that it always -- at least -- suggests that women should be subservient to men. From what I've read, it's often a woman who decides of her own free will to wear a hijab, for religious reasons. (Although I believe that the hijab isn't required by the Koran...)
You know not of which you speak.
I have spent the last 10 to 15 years researching Islam after I noticed increasing numbers of women in my community dressed in niqabs (with faces covered). It is a mistake to think that Islam is just another monotheistic religion. It is a political system wrapped up in a religion.
Proper covering for women is commanded in two verses in the Quran, with further explanation and support in the Hadiths (stories of Mohammed's doings and sayings, which are essential to know how to practice Islam).
Take note that only Muslin women could wear these garments, so they could be easily recognised and "not molested'. Other women were considered to be available for molestation and rape. (There is an obscure Hadith about a slave girl who was punished for dressing like the believing women.) In Muslim majority countries and amongst very devout Muslims everywhere, uncovered women are generally considered to be "filthy whores". Honour killings of muslim girls and women are often at least partly connected to removal of the hijab, which is seen as bringing shame to the family.
Here is Google's AI overview:
The Quran instructs believing women to pull their garments (veils or cloaks) over their bodies for modesty and protection. This command is primarily mentioned in two verses:
Surah An-Nur (24:31): "...let them draw their veils (khumur) over their chests (juyub), and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments...". The khimar is a head-covering, and women in the Prophet's time were told to drape it down to cover their necks and bosoms, which were sometimes exposed in traditional attire.
Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59): "O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments (jalabib) over their persons (when abroad)...". This verse instructs the use of a jilbab—a loose outer garment—to cover themselves completely, which is described as a way to be recognized and not molested
Thank You
Should be reproduced in English Newspapers as well. And please do not forget to send at least the last couple of paragraphs to the Supreme Court.