Thank you, Mr. Mario Dumont for your clever article about Bill 21, which Bambi took the time to read and appreciate. As readers of this blog know, Bambi has many older posts on this bill, some are shown at the end of this one. In her mind, even it is not a perfect bill (and even if, in an ideal world, there is no need for such bills to support the state’s secularism), it is made by and for Québec, according to its own historical society’s choices based on its different culture. It came after a decade of public debates. It is moderate, especially compared to some European countries and contrary to what the mainstream media has been writing about it. One has only to go to the source and read the bill to notice this (ttps://bit.ly/3R4rh3m).
This being said, it is now reassuring for Bambi to learn that Bill 21 “has established a balance, a relative social peace on this sensitive issue” to Québec. When would balance, social peace, and ideally unity also spread to the rest of Canada? Anyhow, below you can find a translation of Mr. Dumont’s article while acknowledging the assistance of Bambi’s faithful friend Google Translate.
“I am convinced that if Justin Trudeau seems obsessed with attacking the power of the provinces to override the Charter, it is largely due to Bill 21. Regulating the wearing of religious symbols in his multicultural world is simply not an option. . Since that day, he has been preparing a counter-offensive.
Bill 96 on the protection of French and Doug Ford’s recent project to restrict the right to strike served as pretexts for him to find his angle of attack.
According to him, the provinces are abusing the notwithstanding clause. The great federal wise, holder of truth and guardian of good morals, must intervene to chaperone them.
Justin Trudeau hates Bill 21 for ideological reasons. Imposing restrictions on religious freedom will never suit him, even in the name of state secularism. Moreover, his offensive seemed to him politically profitable.
However, if we put ideologies aside, Bill 21 must be seen as a real success for Québec society. Almost four years after its adoption, the Law on secularism has established a balance, a relative social peace on this sensitive issue.
Without being perfect, this legislation turned the page on more than a decade of differences and tensions.
Remember the debate over unreasonable accommodations, which was actually a realization that unreasonable accommodations had become the norm.
Overwhelmed by the situation, Jean Charest had mandated the Bouchard-Taylor Commission to find possible solutions.
The Commission provided useful clarification on the issue of accommodation and recommended the banning of religious symbols for government employees in positions of authority.
A decade of pirouettes and political failures followed. Jean Charest tried to shelve this report which divided his party. Then the PQ tabled its Charter of Values, a poorly measured effort that never came to fruition.
Then, the Couillard government passed an incomplete bill on open public services.
When François Legault was elected, the file had become complicated. Bill 21 on secularism managed to offer a balanced response, giving effect, eleven years later, to the Bouchard-Taylor report.
The result is positive. There has been no mass exodus of future teachers or future police officers.
The line is drawn in terms of wearing religious symbols, it is clear, and we don’t talk about that anymore, if not very little.
This is the kind of social peace that a government seeks. Bill 21 created this balance.
Today, it is Justin Trudeau who wants to put the trouble back by reopening the whole debate”.