At first I wasn't going to blog about Quebec's
Charte des valeurs. I've already
written many times about how
assholic it is to force people to expose more of their bodies than
they're comfortable with and was weary of having to cover the same
ground again, and most of the media coverage of this story has already
taken that approach so I was weary of having to repeat myself and didn't think I had anything to add.
But
in the shower, it occurred to me that it's interesting to
look at it from from the other side: instead of looking at what's
banned, let's look at what's allowed.
Here's an English-language
version of the visual aid that's been circulating.
Look
at the "banned" items in the bottom row. Apart from the giant cross in
the left-most picture, all these items have a practical and/or
theological function. They all have the practical function of covering a
part of the body that the wearer wants to be covered (with the possible
exception of the yarmulke - I'm not clear on whether covering that part
of the head is necessary, or whether it's the yarmulke itself that's
necessary.) They all also have the theological function of being
something the wearer needs to do to avoid going to hell, or whatever the
equivalent in their religion is. (I have heard that the hijab per se
is not necessary, just that covering the head is necessary. And I have
heard that the hijab per se is necessary. So let's split the difference and say that some people believe it is theologically necessary.)
Now
look at the "allowed" items. They're all small pieces of jewellery
that display the wearer's religious affiliation. They have no
theological function, and they have no practical function other than
displaying the wearer's religious affiliation. They aren't a part of
the actual practise of the wearer's religion, they aren't going to help
send the wearer to heaven or prevent them from going to hell (or
whatever the equivalent in their religion is). They are simply a
gratuitous display.
If Quebec wants to create an image
of secularism, the place to start is by eliminating gratuitous displays
of religion that serve no purpose. Banning the functional while
permitting the gratuitous eliminates all credibility.
Analogy:
Suppose I have a car, and suppose you have a baby. We have an awesome,
supportive friendship full of mutual assistance, which includes me
lending you my car on those occasions when you need a car. But then one
day I tell you "You aren't allowed to put your baby's carseat in my
car. As you know, I am a Voluntary Human Extinctionist, and displaying
the carseat would come across as promoting breeding." But, before you
can even open your mouth to protest, I add, "But it's okay if you want
to put your Baby On Board sticker on the car, because that's just
small."
Update: I was so
caught up in imagining how awful it would be to be forced to expose more
of my body than I'm comfortable with in order to keep my job that I
failed to notice two very important things pointed out in
this article:
The
Charte wouldn't (my emphasis):
1. Remove religious symbols and
elements considered "emblematic of Quebec's cultural heritage." That
includes: the crucifixes in the Quebec legislature and atop Mount Royal
in Montreal, the thousands of religiously based geographic names (e.g.
Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!) and the names of schools and hospitals.
[...]
4. Ban opening prayers at municipal council meetings, which was recommended
by the 2008 Bouchard-Taylor Commission report into cultural
accommodation. The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled in May that such prayers
do not necessarily violate Quebec's current human rights legislation.
Yeah.
So they're forbidding people to wear as much clothing as they'd like to
in government buildings because it might be interpreted as a religious
symbol, but they're allowing actual religious symbols actually on display in government
buildings. They're forbidding individuals who happen to work for the
government in one capacity to practise their own religion with their own body, but still
permitting situations in which individuals who work for the government in another capacity
are forced or coerced or pressured to participate in the collective practise of a religion to which they may or may not subscribe in order to do their jobs.
So let's
revisit the analogy. I own a car that
I lend out to my friends in a spirit of mutual assistance, but I forbid
people to put their children's carseats in my car because "displaying"
the carseats would counter my stated Voluntary Human Extinctionist
principles. However, I permit the "Baby On Board" sticker on the basis
that it's small.
But now, with this new information,
it comes to light that I have a gaudy, brightly-coloured children's
playground in my front yard. Because, like, it's always been there.
Also,
since I lend out my car to my friends so often, I'm gathering together a
circle of friends to give me their input on the next car I purchase.
However, if you want to be part of this circle, you have to donate
gametes to help me in my attempt to conceive a child of my own.
But you still aren't allowed to put your baby's carseat in the car. Because that would promote breeding.
Not so very good for the credibility, is it?
Mme. Marois suggests that the
Charte will unite Quebecers. I believe it will, against her. You don't win over the secularists by allowing gratuitous displays of religion in the name of secularism.