As the Coali­tion Avenir Que­bec gov­ern­ment in the state of Que­bec in Canada in­tro­duces a bill to ban vis­i­ble ar­ti­cles of faith for pub­lic ser­vants, this would largely af­fect Sikhs, Mus­lims and Jews. World Sikh Or­gan­i­sa­tion ex­presses deep con­cern. Na­tional Coun­cil of Cana­dian Mus­lims says it will re­duce mi­nori­ties to sec­ond-class cit­i­zens. The Cen­ter for Is­rael and Jew­ish Af­fairs has con­demned the re­stric­tions on re­li­gious free­doms. WSN shames Que­bec lead­er­ship by not putting their pic­tures in this story.

The Que­be­cers in power live in their own world and noth­ing pos­i­tive that hap­pens around them touches them. While the whole world has ad­mired the scarf-wear­ing New Zealand Prime Min­is­ter Jacinda Ardern, the state gov­ern­ment of Que­bec is putting Cana­di­ans to shame and are tear­ing apart the in­clu­sive and mul­ti­cul­tural fab­ric of the coun­try by forc­ing pub­lic ser­vants to dis­card their ar­ti­cles of faith.

Tak­ing cue from the New Zealand Prime Min­is­ter who chose not to name the per­son who in­dulged in the hor­rific vi­o­lence to kill peo­ple, the WSN has con­sciously cho­sen to place her pho­to­graph rather than that of the Que­bec lead­ers who are try­ing to trade of­fi­cial ha­tred against mi­nori­ties.

15,000 Sikhs and a siz­able num­ber of Mus­lims in Que­bec will be se­verely im­pacted should the bill be­come law. A large num­ber of prac­tic­ing Sikhs –both men and women in pub­lic life wear ar­ti­cles of faith. Apart from the other ar­ti­cles, the tur­ban is the most vis­i­ble and nec­es­sary faith ar­ti­cle of both Sikh men and women and Mus­lim men and women.

“This ban will have a deeply neg­a­tive im­pact on Sikhs in Que­bec.  The wear­ing of the tur­ban and the Sikh ar­ti­cles of faith is not op­tional for Sikhs and a ban on these ar­ti­cles of faith is, in ef­fect, a ban on Sikhs in po­si­tions of au­thor­ity.

Mukhbir Singh, Pres­i­dent, WSO

For the fourth time in a row, Que­bec has seen the in­tro­duc­tion of a bill ban­ning re­li­gious garb or sym­bols, with this be­ing the broad­est pro­posal to date. The Coali­tion Avenir Que­bec gov­ern­ment has sought to in­tro­duce a bill to ban the wear­ing of re­li­gious sym­bols. Ac­cord­ing to the pro­posed Bill 21- ‘An Act re­spect­ing the Laic­ity of the State’, Pub­lic ser­vants in po­si­tions of au­thor­ity such as po­lice of­fi­cers, judges, pros­e­cu­tors and also school teach­ers will be in­cluded in the ban.

The bill would ban the wear­ing of the hi­jab, kip­pah, and tur­ban for pub­lic ser­vants, in­clud­ing teach­ers, school ad­min­is­tra­tors, Crown lawyers, po­lice of­fi­cers, cor­rec­tional of­fi­cers and oth­ers.

In a quick and sharp re­ac­tion to the pro­posed bill, WSO Pres­i­dent Mukhbir Singh said, “We are deeply dis­ap­pointed that the CAQ has in­tro­duced leg­is­la­tion ban­ning the wear­ing of re­li­gious cloth­ing and sym­bols in Que­bec. The pro­posed leg­is­la­tion is un­nec­es­sary. There is no ev­i­dence to sug­gest that in­di­vid­u­als wear­ing items of re­li­gious cloth­ing are neg­a­tively im­pact­ing any­one in so­ci­ety.  Sec­u­lar­ism is about the neu­tral­ity of the state to­wards re­li­gion and not about lim­it­ing in­di­vid­u­als’ free­dom of re­li­gion.”

“We are deeply op­posed to the re­stric­tion and ero­sion of the free­dom of re­li­gion of in­di­vid­u­als in the name of sec­u­lar­ism.”

Rabbi Reuben Poupko, Que­bec co-chair, CIJA

In a strong op­po­si­tion to the pro­posal, the Na­tional Coun­cil of Cana­dian Mus­lims (NCCM) said “the CAQ gov­ern­men­t’s so-called sec­u­lar­ism bill will ren­der Que­bec Mus­lims and other mi­nor­ity com­mu­ni­ties as sec­ond-class cit­i­zens.”

Rabbi Reuben Poupko, Que­bec co-chair of the Cen­tre for Is­rael and Jew­ish Af­fairs, through a re­lease has said that, “We are deeply op­posed to the re­stric­tion and ero­sion of the free­dom of re­li­gion of in­di­vid­u­als in the name of sec­u­lar­ism.”

This bill has in­voked the notwith­stand­ing clause, al­low­ing it to over­ride free­dom of re­li­gion pro­tec­tions en­shrined in the Char­ter of Rights & Free­doms and Que­bec’s own Char­ter of Hu­man Rights and Free­doms.

The World Sikh Or­ga­ni­za­tion of Canada has ex­pressed, “deep dis­ap­point­ment at the tabling of the bill as “re­li­gious sym­bols” re­main un­de­fined in the law- leav­ing it un­clear how par­tic­u­lar items of jew­elry or cloth­ing will be clas­si­fied cul­tural, re­li­gious or oth­er­wise and who will make that de­ter­mi­na­tion.

Mukhbir Singh ex­pressed con­cern that, “This ban will have a deeply neg­a­tive im­pact on Sikhs in Que­bec.  The wear­ing of the tur­ban and the Sikh ar­ti­cles of faith is not op­tional for Sikhs and a ban on these ar­ti­cles of faith is, in ef­fect, a ban on Sikhs in po­si­tions of au­thor­ity.  We fear that this ban will have a trickle-down ef­fect into the pri­vate sec­tor and young Sikhs who are born and raised in Que­bec will find it even more dif­fi­cult to find jobs in the province.”

“Sec­u­lar­ism is about the state pro­tect­ing re­li­gious free­dom for all Que­be­cers, and not co­erc­ing in­di­vid­ual con­for­mity to what the ma­jor­ity wants,” 

Ih­saan Gardee, Ex­ec­u­tive Di­rec­tor, NCCM

As the coali­tion in Que­bec has in­voked the notwith­stand­ing clause en­ti­tling it to over­ride pro­tec­tions for free­dom of re­li­gion en­shrined in both the Cana­dian and Que­bec Char­ters, the only so­lu­tion is for the peo­ple of Que­bec to strongly op­pose this bill.”

“Sec­u­lar­ism is about the state pro­tect­ing re­li­gious free­dom for all Que­be­cers, and not co­erc­ing in­di­vid­ual con­for­mity to what the ma­jor­ity wants,” said NCCM Ex­ec­u­tive Di­rec­tor Ih­saan Gardee.

“While there is strong sen­ti­ment to reaf­firm the sec­u­lar­ism of Que­bec, our com­mu­nity be­lieves that the sec­u­lar­ism of the state is an in­sti­tu­tional duty and not a per­sonal one. The com­mit­ment to sec­u­lar­ism does not rest on the out­ward ap­pear­ance of in­di­vid­u­als.”, said CIJA.

All three or­gan­i­sa­tions –the WSO, the NCCM and the CIJA have sought sup­port from politi­cians across Que­bec and Canada to de­nounce and op­pose this dis­crim­i­na­tory leg­is­la­tion.

It is heart­en­ing to note that the city coun­cil of Côte St-Luc has ve­he­mently op­posed this leg­is­la­tion, but polls sug­gest that a ma­jor­ity of the pop­u­la­tion is in favour of it.

Will Que­be­cers rise to the oc­ca­sion in to a mod­ern world or will they still live with their ha­tred?