Neutrality

The Canadian province of Quebec had experienced some “public discontent” concerning reasonable accommodation of cultural differences in Quebec society. Some “true blue” Quebeckers had problems with people who did not conform to what they considered to be “normal” for Quebec society. As a result, the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences was struck in 2007, and the final report was made public on May 22, 2008.
Among the recommendations mentioned in a press release was this one: “The Co-Chairs recommend that representatives who must embody to the utmost State neutrality and maintain the appearance of impartiality that is essential to the exercising of their duties be prohibited from wearing religious signs. This is true of judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers, prison guards and the president and vice-president of the National Assembly. However, teachers, civil servants, health professionals and all other government employees should be allowed to continue to wear religious signs. In keeping with the same principle of neutrality, the crucifix in the National Assembly and the reciting of prayers at meetings of municipal councils should not be permitted in a secular State.” (Source: Click Here.)

Recently, one of the members of the Commission, Charles Taylor, was interviewed on a Radio-Canada TV show, Tout le monde en parle. When asked various questions on different matters, he reiterated essentially what was found in the paragraph above, namely that most civil servants should be allowed to wear religious symbols on their person, but the crucifix hanging in the legislature (National Assembly) had to go.

The legislature has already voted to keep the crucifix for “historical” reasons. On that same show, an opposition party member, Pauline Marois of the Parti Québécois, defended the move for that very reason. On the other hand, she would also ban the wearing of religious symbols for all civil servants. She is especially concerned with women who wear a symbol which denotes an inferior status, such as some Islamic dressing.

I tend to side with Taylor, especially about displaying the crucifix, but I can also understand Marois’ concerns where a symbol seems to go against the principle of gender equality. In fact, it reminds me of my Dec. 22 post in which I included a statement from a presumably Muslim woman defending the hijab: “I believe that a hijab or niqāb can be a source of empowerment for women, for their hair and body is covered, so they cannot be judged based on their physical attractiveness. Their intellect and personality is what shines through.”

In response to the French version of that post, a reader sent me the following comment: “But then, why doesn’t this argument regarding intelligence apply to men? In fact, Muslim purists are just looking for ways to justify it. In the end, it’s all about control and it always will be!”

That’s one heck of a good argument!