Bill 21 on secularism of the state: Bravo to Québec Minister of Justice for refusing the Superior Court judgement because “the laws of Québec must apply to everyone and throughout Québec. There are no two Québecs, there is only one”!

Québec will appeal the judgement of Judge Marc-André Blanchard from the Supreme Court, thankfully.

TVA Nouvelle French article:

https://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2021/04/20/loi-21–quebec-va-faire-appel-du-jugement-1

A quick translation, thanks to Google Translate:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2021/04/20/loi-21–quebec-va-faire-appel-du-jugement-1

Does it make sense to divide Québec into two categories of citizens, francophones (majority) versus anglophones (minority)?

Does it make sense to weaken Québec like that and to attack its culture and cultural choices?

Today it is this societal choice (as a reminder, Bill 21 came after 10 years of a public debate on reasonable accommodations).

Tomorrow, what would it be? Will they tell us that protecting the French language is racist or discriminatory 😊?

Why can’t our federation (politicians, judges, media, etc.) understand that there are two main cultural approaches to secularism: Multiculturalism and secularism (laïcité), like many European countries (Québec’s version is much milder than the French one). Both have merits and both have potential flaws. What Bambi likes about the former is that it works… but only up to a certain point. Then, perhaps a lucid re-commitment to unity would be needed to avoid any excesses. What Bambi likes about the latter is the universalism underlying it (e.g., the French Liberty, Equality, Fraternity). Both provide protection to (religious or non-religious) minorities in different ways. Not better, not worse. Just different.

To come back to Bill 21, Bambi is not a lawyer to understand the legal justification behind this judge’s odd decision of today.

Bambi only understands that the same laws must be above all citizens, for fairness.

Plus, what kind of message will we give to newcomers to Québec? You can teach in this school with your religious symbol on, but not in the other one, perhaps in the same neighbourhood? Does that make any sense?

As Bambi wrote in an earlier post: “why would a Muslim friend from Nova Scotia quickly express respect of Québec’s choices when Bambi told him about this forthcoming bill (his veiled cousin was considering immigrating to Québec from Lebanon)”? Why not the media and this judge from Québec? Is he impartial, one cannot help not to wonder? Or is he convinced that this is wise conclusion?

This story is making Bambi think of a conversation she had yesterday with a wise loved one in Beirut who told her that he hopes he is wrong, but there seems to be an attempt to divide the Lebanese judicial system (everything else is already sadly divided, they both joked).

It is sad to see us going down this road in our Canada: More divisions in our society. Bravo to Québec for clearly saying: Non merci. There will be an appeal.

To conclude this post, contrary to Dr. Amir Attaran’s tweet on this matter: No, the nation of Québec is not “backwards”. How sad yet not surprising to see this clever lawyer/professor being so disrespectful of La Belle Province.  Once again, Bambi will repeat that he has the right to be impolite toward Québec or not liking it. As shown below, despite all his unkind remarks, Bambi has defended his right to freedom of speech.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *