The next time Quebec’s provincial legislature is on the TV news, watch very carefully. Look at the upper wall behind the speaker of the legislature. Notice the crucifix.
Have you been watching Quebec trying to sell Bill 62?
Recently, Paul Wells, a Canadian journalist, Maclean’s magazine columnist and political commentator, wrote a very analytical and incisive opinion about Quebec’s new Bill 62.
Read what he wrote at WELLS
I am a tepid fan of Paul Wells’ writing. I find he is contradictory, confusing and equivocating. But his dissection of Bill 62 is not typical Paul Wells, some times ‘spot on,’ other times, ‘huh?’
Wells view is that Bill 62 is objectionable because it is contrary and confusing. Perhaps that is the Gaullic mind. Wells may have lived in Quebec for many years, but he isn’t Gaullic, though occasionally he can be is gallic.
In this case, the gall demonstrated by talking out of both sides of one’s mouth is not demonstrated. Wells often tries to appease people on both sides of an issue or maybe he’s just being politically correct. This time, he takes a clear and precise stand explaining the hypocrisy of Quebec in enacting Bill 62.
To quote part of the Bill: “Under the bill, personnel members of public bodies and of certain other bodies must exercise their functions with their face uncovered,
unless they have to cover their face, in particular, because of their
working conditions or because of occupational or task-related
requirements. In addition, persons receiving services from such
personnel members must have their face uncovered. An accommodation
is possible but must be refused if the refusal is warranted in the context
for security or identification reasons or because of the level of
communication required.”
The Quebec provincial government proclaims that the bill is an “An Act to foster adherence to State religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework for requests for accommodations on religious grounds in certain bodies.” Promotion of religious neutrality? How do you explain the crucifix hanging high on the back wall behind the speaker’s chair in the Quebec legislature? Hypocrisy anyone?
Warda Naili poses for a photograph on a city bus in Montreal. She says the first time she donned a niqab six years ago, it became a part of her. The Quebec woman, a convert to Islam, said she decided to cover her face out of a desire to practice her faith more authentically and to protect her modesty.
What does freedom mean in Canada? Isn’t the chief reason we love this country is because we have total personal freedom here. Go where you want, live where you wish, travel wherever you want to go, adhere to whatever beliefs you want, wear whatever you feel like wearing. Oops, that last one, not so much. We don’t want freedom to be too free.
Often Wells’s his best writing is about music, jazz in particular and in that regard, he is unreservedly outstanding. His political commentary often leaves me lukewarm. In this case, I support his opinion, most heatedly. This Quebec law is absurd, nonsensical and hypocritical.
A final question, how will the federal government respond to Bill 62, a law with more spicey layers than a Vidalia onion?
