What is Bill 21?
In an earlier post, Bambi wrote the following:
“Bill 21 is about Québec’s secularism as a government. It states that public servants representing the state (in position of authorities) will not be wearing any religious symbol. For example, Crown Prosecutors in action BUT not the other lawyers (e.g., defense, etc.).
Bill 21 came after 10 years of public debate in Québec about reasonable accommodations.
Bill 21 is moderate, compared to other bills in secular countries in Europe.
Bill 21 is mainly about public servants in positions of authority, including all the following:
|“the President and Vice-Presidents of the National Assembly, administrative justices of the peace, special clerks, clerks, deputy clerks, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, clerks and deputy clerks respecting municipal courts, and bankruptcy registrars, members or commissioners who exercise their functions within the Comité de déontologie policière, the Commission d’accès à l’information, the Commission de la fonction publique, the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec, the Commission des transports du Québec, the Commission municipale du Québec, the Commission québécoise des libérations conditionnelles, the Régie de l’énergie, the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux, the Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires du Québec, the Régie du bâtiment du Québec, the Régie du logement, the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal, the Administrative Tribunal of Québec or the Administrative Labour Tribunal, as well as disciplinary council chairs who exercise their functions within the Bureau des présidents des conseils de discipline, commissioners appointed by the Government under the Act respecting public inquiry commissions, and lawyers or notaries acting for such a commission, arbitrators appointed by the Minister of Labour whose name appears on a list drawn up by that minister in accordance with the Labour Code, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, and persons who exercise the function of lawyer, notary or criminal and penal prosecuting attorney and who are under the authority of a government department, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, the National Assembly, a person appointed or designated by the National Assembly to an office under its authority (or a body referred to in paragraph 3 of the bill), persons who exercise the function of lawyer and are employed by a prosecutor (Code of Penal Procedure), unless the prosecutor are persons acting in criminal or penal matters for such a prosecutor before the courts or with third persons, lawyers or notaries acting before the courts or with third persons in accordance with a legal services contract entered into with a minister, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, the National Assembly, a person appointed or designated by the National Assembly to exercise a function under its authority (or a body referred to in paragraph 3 of the bill), or lawyers acting in criminal or penal matters before the courts or with third persons in accordance with a legal services contract entered into with a prosecutor, peace officers who exercise their functions mainly in Québec; and principals, vice principals and teachers of educational institutions under the jurisdiction of a school board established under the Education Act or of the Commission scolaire du Littoral established by the Act respecting the Commission scolaire du Littoral.”|
Bill 21 includes a “grandfather” clause, which allows existing public servants to keep serving.
Bill 21 also has a section on the necessity to have one’s face uncovered whilst receiving public services for safety concerns.”
Is Bill 21 meant for Manitoba?
Bill 21 is not ideal, but Bill 21 is made by Québec for Québec ONLY.
No, it is not for neither Manitoba, nor the rest of Canada.
Can we dislike Bill 21?
Of course! As Québeckers and/or Canadians, we may dislike Bill 21. For instance, we may think it is a useless or a silly law. We may consider its potential effect as being (systematically) discriminatory toward a particular group (i.e., Muslim observant/veiled female teachers), despite any good intention. Like Bambi, we may also see the contradiction of Québec. On one hand, it came up with this bill. On the other hand, it keeps funding, to a large extent, private religious schools.
How is the CBC lying about Bill 21?
This is what the CBC, Manitoba is saying about Bill 21 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-islamic-association-islamophobia-survey-1.6116144):
| “In light of the national summit, Vali says the federal government must take a |
stronger stance against oppression and systemic racism, including condemning
Quebec’s Bill 21, which bans the wearing of religious symbols in certain places.”
Clearly, this is a false statement/fact. At this stage, it would be appropriate to talk about propaganda even. The latter is defined as the dissemination of misleading information (e.g., lies, half-truth, rumours) in order to influence public opinion. Another possible definition of propaganda would be techniques of persuasion, including repetitive information, used to promote a doctrine or opinion to achieve a certain political objective. If you do not believe Bambi that the above false statement is not an innocent or unprofessional journalistic mistake, she invites you to search all her archived posts on the characterization of Bill 21 in the media of the rest of Canada. You will see a similar pattern.
For Bambi, such lies are clearly no longer in the range of incompetent journalism. These are mere lies about Québec that are comparable to what citizens used to read in state newspapers under the Soviet Union era or currently in countries like Iran or maybe Syria.
What is Bambi’s conclusion?
Shame on our CBC, which is funded by OUR tax money. Mind you, other mainstream newspapers have been bailed out by our federal government. They all seem to fall in the trap of intellectual mediocrity. Don’t we deserve better journalism, as citizens?