“The recent proposals from Quebec mirror those from France where both countries continue to exert their anti-religious fervour under the false flags of neutrality,” said Benson in an e-mail interview from his home in France. “What they seek to do, in banning any public display of religious commitment, is give themselves the illusion that religion is irrelevant.”
Benson calls the effort “delusional.” “Banning religious symbolism from the public sphere does not banish the relevance of religion,” he said.
“It just perpetuates the domination of secularism in these two jurisdictions. Yet in both places, one a country and the other a province, it will not work.”
Benson distinguished between the secular, which is the public square that includes all believers whether religious and non-religious, and secularism or laicity, which is a belief system or ideology that marginalizes religions and religious believers from the public square.
Imposed secularism, or laicity, will not work “because it is unjust,” he said.
“I hope the Supreme Court of Canada, consistent with the Chamberlain decision, comes out in favour of an inclusive public sphere,” Benson said. “In Canada all citizens, religious or not, have a right to make their religious beliefs known.”
Quebec’s Parti Quebecois government will introduce a Charter of Quebec Values this fall that will prohibit anyone in the public sector from wearing obvious visible signs of religious adherence. Though small, discreet pieces of jewellery would be permitted such as a small crucifix, a large one would be prohibited as would Muslim head scarves or hijabs, Jewish skullcaps or kippahs, and Sikh turbans. Anyone working in health care, education, publicly funded day cares and the justice system would be affected by this ban. The proposed legislation would also enshrine religious neutrality into the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the province’s counterpart to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The proposed charter would also enshrine principles for accommodation of religions and ban anyone with a face-covering such as a burka, face veil or niqab from receiving public services.
“There is a principled reason to ban face coverings on the ground that we as citizens know each other facially, but there is no good reason to ban head veils, kippahs or crosses,” said Benson.
France imposed a similar restrictive legislation as Quebec’s proposed charter in 2004. In 2011, France banned the burka after bank robbers used the tent-like garment as a disguise. Polls have shown almost two- thirds of Quebeckers support the proposed charter, with most of the support coming from the francophone majority. Benson said he would not be surprised if high numbers of French citizens also support laicity.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t a majority as I’ve heard devout Catholics support the banning of ‘visible’ religious signs in the public sphere in France,” he said. “One cannot discount the long-term effects of brainwashing.
“Just because people don’t reject a concept doesn’t make the concept valid,” he said.
Benson said the prospect of rejecting multiculturalism and diversity is as futile as King Canute’s efforts to hold back the tides “and just as foolish.”