Quebec makes about-turn moves to ban religion in daycares
Okay, just to be clear, this headline is misleading. In no way is Quebec banning "religion" in daycares, they are only moving to ban "religious education" in publicly-funded daycare centres. This makes sense; in some ways, it's actually hard to understand why some provinces keep funding only one form of religiously-affiliated public schools: why do only Catholic schools get access to government funding?
What is fascinating is where (I think) this is leading. Quebec is an incredible melange of Francophone culture, Canadian multiculturalism and French language protectionism. This article, from Le Devoir, predicts that in just 21 years, 1 in 3 people in Montreal will be of a visible minority. That's just behind Vancouver and Toronto, where their populations will actually have majority of people of a visible minority (a minority a majority? Yes, perhaps it's time to rethink our labels). In Quebec City itself, the capital of Quebec, only about 5% of the population will be a visible minority. Quebec City is an example of what the government of Quebec, and much of the older population of Quebec have worked towards for many years: a centre of French culture, within a slowly encroaching English country.
So, when you're a region that is as strict as it is in protecting the French language, culture and values, how DO you become multicultural? Can you? And at what point do you uphold your own values and beliefs? Where does accommodation come in from both sides?
The other issue, as I'm discovering in France, is this...not exactly fear, but a strong separation of state and religion. In France, we have the French Revolution to thank for this strict distinction between what is public and laique, and what is private, and thus the domain of religion. In Quebec too, which experienced it's own Quiet Revolution in the 1960s, there is a very strict distinction between public representations of identity and the place of religion.
Margaret Wente's piece on "the two solitudes" was interesting reading today, because I initially had some very same reactions when trying to discuss this situation with my French students. In a country that went through its "reformulation" of laïcité in schools with the infamous Scarf Law in 2004, it's no coincedince that this conflict occured in Quebec. A situation such as Asmahan Mansour's would never take place in France. She would have understood the concept of "laicite" on the field and removed her hijab on the soccer pitch, the same way she removes it to go to school, or if she were to eventually work for the government. This conflict, of a child from English-speaking Ontario going to play in French-speaking Quebec, perhaps better than the current situation with the niqab, shows the real difference between these two solitudes. I wonder what particular beliefs and discourses are actually tied up in particular languages.
Oh, I can hear you all now. Doesn't this Scarf Law unequally impact one religion/gender/country of origin more than others? Well, yes, all of the above. Is it "right" in a sense of equality? Well...that's where things get interesting. This is where Wente almost arrives, although not quite, and what I'm still struggling with: Quebec and France have different ideas about equality of treatment means, than do we in Anglo-Saxon countries/regions. This raises other questions for me, in that I wonder what particular beliefs and discourses are actually taught and understood through the knowledge of particular languages. Is there such a thing as French or English language culture? Perhaps...(and now I am amazed that Quebec has lasted so long in Canada. How can you have a country that speaks two different languages, and rarely the same one?!)
In North America, and I think Britain, there is much more emphasis on community identity and belonging: I am THIS or THAT, I belong to this group. Within the context of Identity Politics, this can be useful, but often has its limits: as I often struggled with in my courses, at what point do we stop subdividing into our various categories of identity. We'll be fitting ourselves into particular boxes into infinity. But what's the alternative?
The way I understand it, laïcité is the principle that protects freedom of thought and freedom of religion for French citizens, and in doing that, requires the separation of religious, ethnic, gender and individual differences from the public sphere. This is seen particularly in the public school system, of which the French are very proud, and where the idea of separate girls and boys schools is truly absurd. (Not to mention the idea of funding all faith-based schools or creating an Afrocentric or black-focused school.) The goal is that all people are to be treated equally as French citizens, regardless of personal beliefs or identities, and separating or singling out particular groups (be it boys, Catholics, or Spanish-speaking individuals) for particular education or treatment runs contrary to that ideal.
Quebec follows much of French culture, sharing the same language, and similar origins. And this is not restricted to ideas about laicité. With that in mind, I think the following comment “If you want to [attend] our classes, if you want to integrate into Quebec society, here are our values. We want to see your face” is really less an example of a fascist or intolerant society, but an example of this ideal of laicité. As Quebec's famous policy on "reasonable accomodation" has asked, at what point can the welcoming society say "And now, this is our history, these are our practices and values and now we would like you to accommodate them in order to protect our culture."
At what point does the welcome nation/region have the right to ask newcomers to adopt their principles? And how should that nation/region deal with contradictions to those values? Change their own principles? And are the ideas of "freedom of religion" and the separation of church and state in contradiction? I think it depends on how you consider equality and identity politics. I'm still trying to figure it out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment